Thursday, March 28, 2013

Scratch that: Joan Walsh, CLUELESS hypocrite at large

The blatant hypocrisy of Joan Walsh's Tuesday article on the imagined racism inherent in stories that mention Obama's children was just too obvious, too juicy, and too true. Ms. Walsh obviously got an earful--or a twitter-feed full--from people about her story because yesterday she felt compelled to defend herself with another piece entitled "My 'hypocrisy' about the Bush daughters."

Note how "hypocrisy" is in quote marks, suggesting that there really is no hypocrisy on Walsh's part. And sure enough, she basically claims this to be the case, that while she "wouldn’t write that column today," it was "newsworthy" and very different in nature from the stories about the Obama girls she was complaining about:
But if conservatives can’t see the difference between breaking with convention to identify the exact location where the president’s underage children are vacationing — a breach of journalistic convention with potential implications for their safety — and writing about the adult first daughters’ (and friends’) skirmishes with police over illegal drinking, which were already in the news – well, if they don’t see the difference, they’re not trying very hard.
That's great, but it's also inconsistent with much of what was actually in her article. To whit:
I have some advice for right-wingers who don’t want it to seem like their anti-Obama animus is racial: Try treating his daughters with respect.
The theme of most right-wing stories on Sasha, Malia and Michelle Obama’s vacations and leisure-time activities seems to be that they’re entitled princesses, when they do exactly the same kinds of things other presidents’ families have done throughout history. There’s only one difference I can see.
The one difference being--according to Walsh, of course--the color of their skin. See how these parts of her argument have magically disappeared from Walsh's defense of her hypocrisy? Because there's little question that the tone of Walsh's piece on the Bush daughters was nasty and judgmental. But the one difference--the true one difference--is that their father was a Republican President.

Walsh's ego is writing checks her brain can't cash, it would seem. Her defense of her piece on the Bush daughters fails miserably to make the case that there was no hypocrisy with her latest piece; indeed, it serves only to bring the hypocrisy into sharper focus.

Well done, Joan. Well done.

Cheers, all.

No comments:

Post a Comment