I recently stumbled upon Michelle Malkin, someone I had no clue existed but who is apparently quite popular with the far right of the United States. I found myself gritting my teeth as I read attack piece after attack piece, each one held together by questionable links and even more questionable reasoning, and as I continued to read, I tried to figure out what it was about Malkin’s “journalism” that made it so distasteful. After all, my last post was an undisguised bashing of Rahim Jaffer, a politician I find particularly loathsome.
So, what’s the difference between someone like Malkin and someone like me? I fear that the truth is: not much. Both of us believe that we’re one of the good guys and that whoever or whatever we attack constitutes the bad. Our arguments seem rock solid to us and hopelessly contrived to each other.
This isn’t anything new, of course. We’ve all complained about how polarized debate is becoming at one time or another in the last decade. It’s almost as much fun to complain about polarization as it is to be polarized. And as we become more and more aware of this polarization, it’s tempting to blame it on the rise of the Internet – and the rise of blogging, in particular. After all, if we didn’t have all these “amateurs” out there editorializing everything to the point that facts are considered secondary to the narrative they’re trying to convey – and instead left it all to “real journalists” to deliver informed, well researched news – wouldn’t we be better off?