John O’Sullivan notes that “If

John O’Sullivan notes that “If we had to rely on the U.S. government and major news media for enlightenment, we would be utterly mystified as to why John Muhammad and John Malvo allegedly went on a killing spree. They are pretty sure that it has nothing to do with Islam or illegal immigration. Aside from that they are baffled.” O’Sullivan points out that there never was any evidence to support the “angry white male” profile, and that three columnists–Michelle Malkin, Andrew Sullivan and Mark Steyn–provided more reliable information and sounder analysis than the entire mainstream media. Why? Because “they were not wearing ideological blinders when they looked at [the] facts.” O’Sullivan concludes that Sullivan, Steyn and Malkin demonstrate that “reporting is too important to be left to the reporters,” a sentiment that will meet with no objection in the blogosphere.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses