Okay, Greg: weird that Mother Jones, which is usually a wonkish think tankish journal, has decided to support Kavanaugh???? I stopped reading it years and years ago, I admit, but wondering why they published this piece at all.
I 100% agree with you, Greg. The MJ article is a whitewash; who knows why. I have seen a rightward shift in MJ over the last year or so, perhaps to try to cater to the right to improve revenues after the 2020 election cycle. I cancelled my subscription months ago, and if this kind of crap continues at MJ, I will not be reading or subscribing.
I too am dismayed that MJ would publish such a poorly argued, immature screed. If MJ staff ever wonder why my vast fortune goes to Greg and not to them, they can refer to Mencimer's fail.
As my editor told me when I was a young reporter: ‘Never ASSUME.’ Then she broke the word apart w/graphics: ‘It makes an ASS out of U, and an ASS out of ME.’ Pedestrian, but it stuck with me. The ‘reporter’ should ponder this. Your work with LB was meticulous. The End!
I cannot *like* a Defense vs a gimp-style hit piece in Good Faith. Seems as if you Arrived even if your enemies showed up to a Knife Fight with sharp pencils. Kudos to you & LB -- send Boof-boi Brett to the dumpster of History
This/These piece(s) about Kavanaugh in WaPo. Not flattering Mr. Greg, can't go a day without something from his articles coming to the forefront. Or, is it the foregone conclusion of 7 yrs of FPOTUS' 'activities' (with 40, 50 yrs. Fed. Soc.)?
Over the last 5 years, more and more “respected” publications have endorsed such drivel, starting with the NYT. For a time I found myself questioning my own reality. Thank god for you, Greg, and for your cohort. You keep me sane. F those guys.
Excellent rebuttal, Greg. When I saw LB's tweet yesterday, I clicked on the article and started reading just a bit of it (though I hesitated to give them the click) and searched for your name and immediately noted the "novelist" tag. Anger ensued, both for its use in an attempt to disrespect you and your work, and for its disrespect to novelists. And like Linda Mitchell, who commented previously, said: it felt odd coming from "Mother Jones" in a way. Made me wonder what's up with that, what's behind it? Anyhow, I had noticed you were absent from Twitter for a day or so, and I wondered what was up. Now I realize you were working on this piece. Good job! And kudos for referencing the Allmans, my hometown band.
All of it is very strange. I don't even understand the point of her piece...it read like the pieces by Glenn G in 2017 that were haughtily dismissive of Trump/Russia. Same condescending tone. I was busy yesterday with personal stuff...I banged this out this morning.
I saw the Allmans play, in 1991 or 92. They were awesome. "Jessica" remains one of my all-time faves. (And I sort of make fun of them here, but the Jonas brothers are sneakily talented).
Yes, I don't get the point, either, except to condescend, which comes through loud and clear. And you did a great job if you banged this out this morning. "Jessica" is amazing - the pre-1977 Allmans are the best. Poking fun was noted, too. :-)
I've been struggling with MJ since the first Obama election....unsubscribed, then resubscribed, then unsubscribed. There's something off in MJ, and I agree with your suggestion: it's probably finances. Your series, which I read, was a welcome light. And I, too, don't get the motivation behind this excreble MJ piece. Then again, I don't get the equally excreble reporting and newscasting of the NYT and PBS, respectively. Thanks for continuing to provide light in this dark forest.
Like you, I had a MJ subscription and was getting the same feeling that something was "off". I cancelled my subscription a long time ago. I still respect David Corn's reporting however.
I hope you will PREVAIL in asking that question. I have secret pleasure: when an author and researcher calls out someone who writes a trash piece. You tickled my fancy with this!
Fan-fucking-tastic! Love the point by point rebuttal and YOUR questions and observations make a hell of a lot more sense than theirs. And I’m with Linda Mitchell, below. I stopped subscribing to MJ years ago, but still don’t understand why the hatchet job here. Nice work Greg. Unfortunately, it looks like ok’ Brett-boy is going to coast on by because that’s how weak the fourth estate is now, and that’s how much power the powers that be have now. Awful lot of people in all media now who are incentivized to just stay quiet, look the other way, and not ruffle the feathers of those who gain power.
I'm old enough to remember a time when the SCOTUS was a respected part of the United States judiciary, and now look at them! The addition of Kavanaugh only brought it down more than I thought possible, and certainly the installation of the Handmaid's Tale wife only made it worse. I've read Mother Jones sporadically through the years, but the article, at times, made me feel like I was reading a piece at The Daily Wire. Trash journalism. And really, novelist? WTF? Activist, yes. Even "columnist" would have been more accurate.
I know exactly what "seems" means used in a piece like this because I use it all the time. I do insurance policy audits and have to write descriptions of operations of businesses and the like. Whenever I've failed to get a tiny piece of information and just want to get the damned thing done, I use "seems." "The insured seems to concentrate most of their business activities on roofing, however, there is also a large component of carpentry involved in most of the projects they perform for their customers." It works for me, but it shouldn't be in a journalistic piece in a national publication! That SEEMS wrong.
Okay, Greg: weird that Mother Jones, which is usually a wonkish think tankish journal, has decided to support Kavanaugh???? I stopped reading it years and years ago, I admit, but wondering why they published this piece at all.
That surprised me, too. I just didn't understand the point of it. Nothing she points out about his finances isn't in our series.
Exactly.
I 100% agree with you, Greg. The MJ article is a whitewash; who knows why. I have seen a rightward shift in MJ over the last year or so, perhaps to try to cater to the right to improve revenues after the 2020 election cycle. I cancelled my subscription months ago, and if this kind of crap continues at MJ, I will not be reading or subscribing.
Maybe they were trying to bogart my readers and get the clickz? It didn't get any traction on Twitter, apart from us dragging it.
Having been kicked off of Twitter for perhaps, unsavory things I said about TFG and family, I wouldn’t know!
I too am dismayed that MJ would publish such a poorly argued, immature screed. If MJ staff ever wonder why my vast fortune goes to Greg and not to them, they can refer to Mencimer's fail.
Thank you, Gail!
You go Greg (& LB)
As my editor told me when I was a young reporter: ‘Never ASSUME.’ Then she broke the word apart w/graphics: ‘It makes an ASS out of U, and an ASS out of ME.’ Pedestrian, but it stuck with me. The ‘reporter’ should ponder this. Your work with LB was meticulous. The End!
I believe that line originated in "The Odd Couple," although maybe it didn't originate there. True, though! And thanks!
I first saw it in "The Bad News Bear" movie when I was growing up. That scene has stuck in my mind ever since!
I cannot *like* a Defense vs a gimp-style hit piece in Good Faith. Seems as if you Arrived even if your enemies showed up to a Knife Fight with sharp pencils. Kudos to you & LB -- send Boof-boi Brett to the dumpster of History
I didn't want to comment at all, but I could not let it stand -- not when she quoted me.
Agreed. To remain silent is to concede
April 2023
This/These piece(s) about Kavanaugh in WaPo. Not flattering Mr. Greg, can't go a day without something from his articles coming to the forefront. Or, is it the foregone conclusion of 7 yrs of FPOTUS' 'activities' (with 40, 50 yrs. Fed. Soc.)?
Your piece is just so well done. Why they published that is beyond me. I blocked her on Twitter because I have no patience for this crap anymore.
Total crap. Thanks1
Over the last 5 years, more and more “respected” publications have endorsed such drivel, starting with the NYT. For a time I found myself questioning my own reality. Thank god for you, Greg, and for your cohort. You keep me sane. F those guys.
Thanks, Barbara. I love my cohort!
Excellent rebuttal, Greg. When I saw LB's tweet yesterday, I clicked on the article and started reading just a bit of it (though I hesitated to give them the click) and searched for your name and immediately noted the "novelist" tag. Anger ensued, both for its use in an attempt to disrespect you and your work, and for its disrespect to novelists. And like Linda Mitchell, who commented previously, said: it felt odd coming from "Mother Jones" in a way. Made me wonder what's up with that, what's behind it? Anyhow, I had noticed you were absent from Twitter for a day or so, and I wondered what was up. Now I realize you were working on this piece. Good job! And kudos for referencing the Allmans, my hometown band.
All of it is very strange. I don't even understand the point of her piece...it read like the pieces by Glenn G in 2017 that were haughtily dismissive of Trump/Russia. Same condescending tone. I was busy yesterday with personal stuff...I banged this out this morning.
I saw the Allmans play, in 1991 or 92. They were awesome. "Jessica" remains one of my all-time faves. (And I sort of make fun of them here, but the Jonas brothers are sneakily talented).
Yes, I don't get the point, either, except to condescend, which comes through loud and clear. And you did a great job if you banged this out this morning. "Jessica" is amazing - the pre-1977 Allmans are the best. Poking fun was noted, too. :-)
OMG, Jessica is one of my all-time favorites, never have known anyone else that has said that!
Very odd, indeed for MJ! Has she been “bought out” by the one Koch brother?
I've been struggling with MJ since the first Obama election....unsubscribed, then resubscribed, then unsubscribed. There's something off in MJ, and I agree with your suggestion: it's probably finances. Your series, which I read, was a welcome light. And I, too, don't get the motivation behind this excreble MJ piece. Then again, I don't get the equally excreble reporting and newscasting of the NYT and PBS, respectively. Thanks for continuing to provide light in this dark forest.
Like you, I had a MJ subscription and was getting the same feeling that something was "off". I cancelled my subscription a long time ago. I still respect David Corn's reporting however.
Great job Greg. As usual.
I hope you will PREVAIL in asking that question. I have secret pleasure: when an author and researcher calls out someone who writes a trash piece. You tickled my fancy with this!
“No, liberals, the Koch brothers don’t own him.”
Yawn. Again, you never said that.
So however she tries to undermine "liberals" the question still prevails...
#whoownskavanaugh ???
Oooooh, smoked her!
Fan-fucking-tastic! Love the point by point rebuttal and YOUR questions and observations make a hell of a lot more sense than theirs. And I’m with Linda Mitchell, below. I stopped subscribing to MJ years ago, but still don’t understand why the hatchet job here. Nice work Greg. Unfortunately, it looks like ok’ Brett-boy is going to coast on by because that’s how weak the fourth estate is now, and that’s how much power the powers that be have now. Awful lot of people in all media now who are incentivized to just stay quiet, look the other way, and not ruffle the feathers of those who gain power.
I'm old enough to remember a time when the SCOTUS was a respected part of the United States judiciary, and now look at them! The addition of Kavanaugh only brought it down more than I thought possible, and certainly the installation of the Handmaid's Tale wife only made it worse. I've read Mother Jones sporadically through the years, but the article, at times, made me feel like I was reading a piece at The Daily Wire. Trash journalism. And really, novelist? WTF? Activist, yes. Even "columnist" would have been more accurate.
I know exactly what "seems" means used in a piece like this because I use it all the time. I do insurance policy audits and have to write descriptions of operations of businesses and the like. Whenever I've failed to get a tiny piece of information and just want to get the damned thing done, I use "seems." "The insured seems to concentrate most of their business activities on roofing, however, there is also a large component of carpentry involved in most of the projects they perform for their customers." It works for me, but it shouldn't be in a journalistic piece in a national publication! That SEEMS wrong.