Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Uncritical Linking Cont'd   [Jonah Goldberg]

I am almost entirely unpersuaded by this argument, from a reader:

Jonah:

Your liberal critic has it exactly right. Not reviewing everything in an opinion piece you link to is a bad thing because it allows you to have it both ways. You can win the approval of those who support all of the sentiments within the piece, but if anyone calls you out on it, you can claim you didn't read it and didn't endorse it. Linking to something supporting something you say without reviewing it is endorsing it. Liberal blog readers have a word for it: Disenglennousness (n.) - The practice of saying, after the fact, that just because you linked to something outrageous with "THIS IS INTERESTING" or "EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS", you don't necessarily agree with the linked sentiments, their having been exposed as utter pig-bollocks. The term comes from its biggest practitioner, Glenn Reynolds. It is a real problem on the right side of the blogosphere and conservatives would be wise to apply some self criticism to these types of tactics. The GOP is going to go through a rough period right here and this type of intellectual dishonesty will not serve them well as they work to return from the wilderness.

Me: The bits about how it's a "real problem" and all that strike me as nonsense. Oh no conservative bloggers are pointing out other peoples' articles without explicitly endorsing or denouncing them! Will the Republic survive!?

Where I will grant a sliver of agreement is that if your aim is to get something out there without having fingerprints on it, that's bad form (though I really have a hard time believing this is a "problem" unique to conservative blogs or even that common). Indeed, sometimes things are, simply, "INTERESTING." Sometimes, I link to stuff because I think people should read it, even if I haven't made up my own mind about it. And, I link to lots of liberal posts without commenting about them. How come I'm never accused by liberals of agreeing with those posts? I did it yesterday with Jonathan Chait's cover story, for example. And my link to the NY Sun editorial was hardly an effort to get some kind of message out. But a fevered reader thought otherwise. That's not my problem, it's his.

It seems to me that this is all another conveniently selective standard used to beat up influential conservatives — mixed with a bit of conspiratorial paranoia about the Republican "noise machine." And in particular it sounds like a lot of sour grapes about the success of Instapundit who links constantly to articles without offering much commentary. And, you know what, Jimmy crack corn and I don't care. Instapundit does a great job.

05/02 05:31 PMShare