Cathy Seipp writes a column about media bias. It makes, as Kevin Drum notes, a fairly elementary logical mistake. Someone makes an absurdly pro-Bush film, and turns out to be a Bush contributor. An anonymous intervieer Seipp describes as a “hack” thinks that’s relevant in a way that a contribution to Gore wouldn’t have been. Seipp doesn’t understand, or pretends not to understand, the point: that the director’s Bush contribution makes the film’s praise of Bush less surprising, and therefore less convincing, had come from a Gore contributor. But at least Seipp tells the story accurately.
Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner excerpts it dishonestly, pretending that the exchange being criticized concerns a film about Eisenhower rather than the one about Bush.
Kevin Drum catches Lopez lying.
Glenn Reynolds links approvingly to both the logically challenged Seipp piece (“a must-read”) and the veridically challenged Lopez piece.
The sad thing is that the polarization in Blogland is now so extreme that it’s quite possible that no blog that Glenn bothers to read will bring Kevin’s correction to his attention.
With any luck, things wil calm down after November.