Oh no it isn't

I posted this as a comment on Politically Homeless a rightie blog I read often. It's normally quite good, excellent even, but the author seems to have misread the bounce on this one. Leaving aside the hilarious inaccuracies and the fact that a journalist is trying to make an argument on media coverage without Lexis-Nexis, I don't agree with his reading of the style of the article which will be very familiar to those of you who've had any experience with the dimmer bulbs in the right-wing chandelier on the 'net.

The way to snark

This is the way to do political incorrectness, snark, kulturkrieg, counterintuitive journalism, out-of-the-box thinking, wading against the lefty tide - call it what you will. It’s well-researched and well-written, and specific in its targets. Greg Sheridan could never write an article like this if his life depended on it (nor could John Pilger). The link to al-Qaeda is measured and defined. The laziness of those who go after Israel is made clear, without the ideological blunderbuss hitting fair and foul alike (the very sort of intellectual imprecision that the targets of The Australian are often accused, but which its writers practice so often its credibility is almost exhausted). Well done on rescuing Anna Politkovskaya from a schlocky Diana-style martyrdom and putting her death in a squarely political and journalistic context.

Chechnya also shows the wisdom of what Americans call “the surge”, or (before he fell out of favour) “the Powell Doctrine”. I’d be fascinated to know if Australia has accepted any Chechnyan refugees. This does not make me any sort of expert on Chechnya but I am better informed that I was and challenged to consider issues I hadn’t considered much. I wish this article would be recognised by the various journalistic prizes at year’s end, but it probably won’t. This article is a real find in the lame junk shop of Australian media, and I was glad to have found it.

Pity the comments aren’t of similar quality (Moderates don’t take to the streets by definition, DH, they have work to do – and shame on you for not noticing people until they take to the streets and cause atrocities).

This doesn't take four months of undercover work to do - it's bloody marvellous and there should be more of it.

That article, from its initial argumentum ad google, debating society outrage quotient and teh left hates Jews ending, is another example of how right wing snark is only ever unintentionally funny.

The 'article': x opposes y but x has not opposed a,b...g therefore x is clearly motivated by evil motive z' is standard fare on right-wing blogs. The fact that such a lazy, imbecilic argument can be published on the Australian website as a meritorious argument from a right-wing point of view is another sign of how empty the right-wing cause has become of late. I'm amazed that Andrew seems taken in by this. Or is he engaging in subtle sarcasm and am I the one taken in?

Alternatively this could just be a shitty article by a shitty writer. why not make an argument about the left being happy to invade and bomb eastern European statelets and iraq on spurious reasons only when a centre-right us president thinks it's a good idea? oh, because John Pilger already did that, in fact Brendan O'neill of sp!ked has pretty much made a career out of this massive blindspot some left-wingers have.

If this is it, it's going to be a long time in the wilderness waiting for Rudd to slip on a banana skin, or for the American right to fix their fax machine.