"On his website Friday, Hewitt attacked syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, writing that her Friday column was a "typically self-serving bit of MSM posturing … full of the now-commonplace MSM McCarthyite tactic of blasting unnamed conservative bloggers, this time for their treatment of Jill Carroll. "But she doesn't name anyone in particular, which gives the game away."
He must have the same kind of filter that Charles Johnson built into his blog, only in Hugh's case it filters out the truth. As Alex states, Goodman named two bloggers in her piece that attacked Jill Carroll and then a few paragraphs down talked about the reaction from two other bloggers while Hewitt said there were none. Even if she hadn't named any at all-would it have made her column untrue?
As I tried to understand why Hewitt penned something so easily debunked, I wonder if he had to just satisfy his insatiable hunger to attack traditional media. Some might call that being blinded by an addiction.
When Hugh Hewitt writes a complete fabrication like this, he truly symbolizes the "fever swamp" of the blogosphere that represents many on the right. He calls into question the most important ethic that any blogger can have. Honesty. Hewitt considers himself to be one of the leaders of the conservative movement, so If he can misrepresent a column so blatantly then how can he be taken seriously at all?
