Friday, July 10, 2009

Heh, Indeed

Megan says;

Megan McArdle (Replying to: Downpuppy) July 10, 2009 3:59 PM

Whether or not you agree with me, I am in fact required to get the details right in the pieces I publish in my magazine. There's no out for "truthiness".
Note the qualifier "in my[!] magazine". Not the blog, the magazine.
So there you have it, there is no requirement for Megan to get her facts right in her blog, by her own implicit admission. We all know this, but it's nice to have it confirmed.

And the comment just prior was a beaut, too;
Megan McArdle July 10, 2009 3:52 PM

I'm just not down with the idea that there's some sort of elusive "central point" to stories that permits you to write a bunch of total nonsense as long as the "central point" is good.
Well provoked and done, Downpuppy.


NutellaonToast said...

I'm sad she no longer pays any attention to my comments. Even when I try to make a valid point. The rubes are still fun to rile up.

BTW, where is M? I think he has to be forced to take on the Taibbi(sp?) post as punishment for abandoning us during this latest tweak.

Downpuppy said...

Thankyou. Thank you very much.

Not sure how I did it, (other than being a tax accountant at a time when she's spouting rubbish about taxes) but being on the Megdar makes the whole thing much more exciting.

Downpuppy said...

But I must bow before Omnissiah!
Somebody asked for a shorter version, & Big O produced perfection:

"Neither Matt Taibbi nor Sarah Palin know anything about Serious Buisiness on the Internet. Taibbi's problem is that he bitches about stuff even though he doesn't have an MBA. Fail. Also, he doesn't "prove" anything, which I will demonstrate by not actually refuting anything he said. Also also, I'm totally not a fan of bankers or Wall St, just so we're all clear on that."

Was that too long?

ChicagoEd said...

Did any one actually finish her post about Taibbi? I sort of understood the first few paragraphs, but then got hopelessly lost. You can only take so much of her incessant vitriol. It's like being pounded on the head with a two-by-four. But I'll keep reading her this weekend to so how (and if) the coke party finally ends.

clever pseudonym said...

She's not "down with the idea"? What is she, the host of "Yo! MTV Raps" in 1989 or something?

I got about two paragraphs in to that Taibbi post before my eyes glazed over and had to wipe the drool from my bottom lip. Boring, smug, tedious, all while in hideous attack mode that McArdle no doubt believes is civilized 'cause she doesn't use any bad words.

Anonymous said...

And she won't stop:

"Megan McArdle (Replying to: Downpuppy) July 10, 2009 6:52 PM

No, his facts are wrong, his conclusions are wrong, and only his discomfort with Goldman Sachs' role in our public life is correct. Since that's about 5% of the essay, and he doesn't even explore THAT in any interesteing way, F-"

And then responding to herself:
Megan McArdle (Replying to: Megan McArdle) July 10, 2009 9:48 PM

Or perhaps a better way to say it is that the facts are right, but the mini narratives are ludicrously wrong, which makes the meta narrative suspect."

Susan of Texas said...

It took me four attempts to finish it. Trying to refute it will be hell. There's the snide and inept attempt to smear via Sarah Palin, the actual facts, which she admits are right, the whole "narrative" boondoggle, unravelling the mess she's making of derivatives, the "old news" explanation that Taibbi explicitly calls bullshit, the hysterical claims that Taibbi doesn't know enough to write about this stuff, unlike her, and a mini-history of the malfeasance of Goldman Sachs. All for a rant that probably took her half an hour or less to write.

M. Bouffant said...

Funny you should mention me. It seems Sullivan has demolished this "smackdown" by calling it a "smackdown," thereby exposing himself & McA. to ridicule.

Meaning we needn't type nothin', no how.

(Links in new item above.)

clever pseudonym said...

I finally read the Taibbi piece and stupidly returned to Megan's post to try and re-read her drivel of a "smackdown" response. All I can say is holy shit. Let's put aside the smug, awful writing and blind defense of her Wall Street Overlords for a minute and consider the implications of what Megan wrote.

You know that phrase "don't shit where you eat"? Well, Megan just took a giant dump on the kitchen table. Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending cronyism or ass kissing here, but there are certain unwritten rules in any line of work about being friendly and extending professional courtesy and respect to your colleagues. You don't defend them or look the other way when they lie, fabricate information, get their facts wrong, or plagiarize, but it's pretty flipping stupid it openly insult them by suggesting they're not cut out for their job. In Megan's case, doing so is outright ironic.

See, Megan thinks she's sophisticated and civilized because she would never, never come out and call someone like Matt Taibbi an incompetent, half-witted, shallow, ineloquent, opportunistic media whore and all-around piece of white trash. No, she's too polite for that. Instead, she refers to him as "the Sarah Palin of journalism." That way, she actually has called him an incompetent, half-witted, shallow, ineloquent, opportunistic media whore and all-around piece of white trash without outwardly being guilty of uttering a blatant insult. She didn't correct errors or counter arguments or point to faulty reasoning. She called Taibbi an idiot. In short, she polished a turd, and probably thought she was clever for doing so.

I thought she started digging her professional grave practically from the start, but this really takes the cake. That cushioned chair at the Atlantic isn't going to be hers forever, and one day she just might find herself handing her CV to someone with whom Matt Taibbi has influence. Journalists have long memories. Even if Taibbi doesn't respond to her criticism because he sees her "work" for how truly useless it is, he's always going to remember that she called him a moron that was no good at his job. Just because she used pretty words from her thesaurus to do it doesn't mean she'll be forgiven.

Not only that, but people in general don't like it when colleagues are willing to eat their own for professional advancement. If she keeps this up, she'll find herself on the outs faster than she can say "who took a crap on the kitchen table?"

(PS - sorry this was so long. Being flabergasted brings out the babble in me)