Poor Joe Klein

He writes today about having to endur the slings and arrows of the rabid left blogosphere. I found this particularly interesting. After saying that there are many fine left-wing blog sites, he notes:

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

I'm afraid Joe still just doesn't understand. He plays the blog game just like the old (and increasingly under pressure) journalist game of insisting on nicey nicey while ducking accountability. Ok. I can understand wanting civil. But here's my question to Joe:

What the hell are you talking about?

One of the beauties of blogging on the internets is the ability to instantly reference, link, and provide proof for claims. Personally, I try not to assert anything that I can't link to with some evidence beyond having just pulled it out of my ass. But look at Joe's comment above.

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance

Ok, as them thar professionals say, who?, what?, when? where? I am absolutely positive that in a blog (there are around 10,000 new ones per day) someone has been rude to Joe. Who? Is it anyone that is read? If so, provide a quote/link/reference/proof of some kind rather than just pissing in the wind all over a strawman. And what proof is there that the good stuff is being "drowned out". And good based on who's valuation?

Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed

See above comment. Whaaaaaaa!

especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable

Again, same comment as above. And Joe, I got news for you. You are not liberal. You may think you are. Fellow journalists may be willing to accept that moniker on you but I don't. Nor do an awful lot of real liberals who are growing in strength and influence. And that seems to be at the heart of most of the problems I've seen with your writing. The fact is you are labeled as the liberal while the liberal position goes wanting and unreported. I'm sorry to deflate your ego by reporting that it's this skewing of the political spectrum in the media is the larger problem, more so than you.

I read Atrios regularly and most of the other bloggers that I suspect he's referencing (although we'd never know by his strawman comments). Yes, many including moi' have been very critical of Joe. And you know what? Sometimes it's been entertainingly personal. But usually it's referenced, linked and proven that whatever Joe has said is .... well .... wankery! And unlike your comments in your blog post, comments directed at you are usually linked and referenced with some .... wait for it ..... real data! And Joe. Should you like examples, I'll provide them. (Joe, here's one that took me about 2 minutes to find on google)

Joe also makes some comparisons between what he has had to endur and right wing radio. I won't even go into what nonsense this is right now. Maybe later. On the other hand, I'm sure someone else will detail how it's crap and I'll be able to simple link/quote from that research (that's how it works Joe!).

I know it's been a very long time, if ever, that Joe has had to undergo scrutiny for what he writes in any kind of real public dialog. I also understand that he's not used to accountability .... giving or receiving. But the pundit aristocrisy needs to understand that the information world is changing. Some of it may be unpleasant, i.e. personal attacks by some. But a lot of it is good, hopefully increasing the quality and accountability of those opinion makers in our midst.