Patrick Pexton, Washington Post ombudsman, defends blogger Jennifer Rubin from her error in declaring that the Norway bomber was a jihadist. He cuts her a pass on late correcting because she is a religious Jew and was not online during the Sabbath following her error.
In a long chat with Rubin last week, I found her forceful and unrepentant, yet not unreasonable. She is not an ogre or a racist. And she does not deserve some of the calumny she got.
I guess she does deserve some of the calumny then? The comments are fabulous.
There's this from MarkMacDonald: "Also, using the Sabbath as an excuse for inaccurate writing simply does not cut the mustard."
And this from bernielatham. wow. Note that Webster's defines bigot as "one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices." Shoe fit?
Certainly not an ogre. Possibly not a racist either depending on how you define your terms. But it would be very interesting to see an explication from you or how the term "bigot" does not apply as regards Rubin's statements on Muslims along with examples of to whom that term would apply in this context.
"This brings us back to the shootings in Norway, an act committed by a disturbed man who drew some of his inspiration from extremist Web sites. A blogosphere given to vitriol and hasty judgments ought to consider the possible consequences of its own online attacks."
"Some"? What proportion, do you think? And among those sources, how many has Rubin herself quoted, referenced or linked to in the past (Geller, Spencer, Pipes)?
But it's your final sentence I've quoted above which is the real head-shaker. How in the name of heaven can it be that Rubin's many derogatory and inflammatory comments on Muslims are not part of what you indict here? How is it that you make no reference to that at all?