Two conservative writers have harshly criticized the instant reaction of bloggers and commentators to the propaganda tape that captors made kidnapped Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll make in Iraq before she was released. In the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby opined:
I have always believed that racing to report a story makes a lot more sense than racing to express a point of view about it. No doubt there are some sages who don't need time to reflect -- or to wait for more facts, or to see how a story turns out -- in order to generate some well-chosen words of genuine wisdom. My own experience is that insight and good judgment don't usually work that way. I find that thought and a bit of distance vastly improve the odds of coming up with something worth saying -- and that rushing to tell the world what to think of the latest headlines makes for shallow, half-baked, or unfair commentary.
Jacoby provides examples, but he doesn't really name names. He leaves the bloggers and talk show producers anonymous.
In an "Outside Voices" commentary on the CBS "Public Eye" site, Jim Geraghty of National Review sounds the same alarm:
At their best, blogs can provide the mainstream media with competition, and pressure established organizations bring their A-game and put out their best work. But the MSM will have little reason to fear competition from blogs, if enough of them embrace the growing trend of denounce-with-spittle-flicking-fury-first-and-get-the-answers-later. Some readers new to the blogosphere will make distinctions between blogs; others will look at the high-profile worst of the lot and say, "to hell with them."
The Pajamahadeen have gone from fact-checking Dan Rather to speculating that Jill Carroll faked her tears on her hostage tape. This is not progress.
