Reading Comprehension

The Forward did an interview with Max Blumenthal in which, among other things, they ask him a question about why he thinks he gets a bigger response from videos he makes than from articles he writes. He replies:

I wrote in 2005 a piece on the College Republican National Convention, and I asked participants the same question. While the reaction was immense, it wasn’t the same. I think for so many people, reading is just such a rigorous mental exercise; they just can’t handle it. They respond much more to my videos. That’s partly why I produced it, to break out of the liberal intellectual bubble that I’ve been working in and that audience that I’ve been writing for. And I think I’ve really broken through.

In short, he's not sure, but he does think that video reaches a broader audience than he's able to reach with print. Thus, one reason he makes videos is to reach an audience outside of the "liberal intellectual bubble" comprised of the print outlets he's written for. Jamie Kirchick, guest-blogging for Andrew, somehow manages to completely misconstrue this:

Portraying himself as a truth-telling hero for capturing the wignuttery of Christian Zionists, this part of the interview is particularly laughable:

That’s partly why I produced it, to break out of the liberal intellectual bubble that I’ve been working in and that audience that I’ve been writing for. And I think I’ve really broken through.

Because as we all know The Nation and The Huffington Post are bastions of objectivity and politically diverse readerships.

What's the sarcasm for here? I'm baffled.

Comments

I think Kirchik's point is that those videos are distributed on The Nation and HuffPo, so the audience still ends up being the liberal intellectual bubble. I can't really comment on whether or not he's correct, except to say that's where I found out about Blumenthal. Those places and Atrios.

Posted by Ned | August 25, 2007 8:18 PM

Here's what baffles me wtf is Kirchick doing on the Atlantic? It's bad enough that he is is infesting the plank. No more Mini-me!

Posted by ligedog | August 25, 2007 8:18 PM

I don't think Blumenthal comes off well at all in those videos. He basically just makes an ass out of himself, and missed so many opportunities to do more than that. (Though I did love the part with the guy who says that "sometimes you might think you're gay, but if you pray enough, you'll realize you're not.")

Posted by Algernon | August 25, 2007 8:35 PM

Because Jamie Kirchick has never heard of YouTube or the Daily Show or the Report. Because Jamie Kirchick is wannabe old school journalist.

Posted by jerry | August 25, 2007 8:46 PM

As far as I can tell Kirchick is just a jerk. You know how I know? Even when I agree with him I think being a jerk.

Same with Hitchens, assuming I can tell WTF he's talking about. Sometimes his cloud of sneering completely obscures his point.

Posted by chris | August 25, 2007 8:50 PM

I'm with chris, more or less. Kirchik's first point in the post ([Blumenthal's work is] .. crashing crazy right-wing events and making the participants look dumb. It's not so hard to do, and this type of gotcha "journalism" is lazy and cuts both ways. A writer for National Review could just as easily attend an anti-war rally and find some wingnuts to lampoon.) is completely valid. A deliberate selection of edited interviews from the convention of the most respectable of organizations - or the comments of the most adimrable bloggers - can easily be used to make the event/blog being portrayed look absurd.

That said, Kirchik is a jerk and a Peretz sycophant, and the rest of his post is just vituperation and nonsense, accompanied - unsurprisingly - by an attempt to butter up Sullie via nonsequitor.

Also, Blumenthal doesn't just take on random attendees for their idiosyncratic views. He goes after invited speakers for their statements, and Blumenthal's snippets of individual attendees connect with his viewers because they appear to reflect the broader characteristics of the movements Blumenthal is attacking.

Posted by Warren Terra | August 25, 2007 8:59 PM

What is characteristic about Kirchik is the completely gratuitous swipe. Why did he think appropriate to bring Blumenthanl's father into is post? What legitimate purpose did it serve?
But he does that all the time at TNR.

Posted by nypete | August 25, 2007 10:29 PM

I expect to see Kirchick's kind of crap in the Weekly Standard. Actually, not any more, since I let my subscription lapse for that rag in 2005.

Posted by jonathan | August 25, 2007 10:43 PM

Ned writes: "I think Kirchik's point is that those videos are distributed on The Nation and HuffPo, so the audience still ends up being the liberal intellectual bubble. I can't really comment on whether or not he's correct, except to say that's where I found out about Blumenthal. Those places and Atrios."

It's reaching a lot more places than that... including YouTube.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22college+republicans%22+%22max+blumenthal%22&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=10&sa=N

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 25, 2007 11:55 PM

it's simple. mini-marty was trying to show how smart he is by playing "gotcha" with blumenthal. unfortunately he is not very bright and didn't fully understand the context of what blumenthal was saying, and thus screwed up. incidentally, he does this kind of thing, not carefully fact-checking his sneering put-downs on tnr all the time, and routinely gets called out on it in comments.

Posted by logicat | August 26, 2007 12:24 AM

Well, they're right about HuffPo.

For instance, that site ignores the entire Palestinian situation with such massive intensity that it's no coincidence that I got banned there the same day I got banned from TPM. I attempted to expose Marshall's bullshit actions on HuffPo - and got banned.

Arianna is as much a "crypto-Zionist" as Josh Marshall is. That and the "celebrity obsession" makes the site all but worthless except for the odd posts by some of the contributors. It's no wonder Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com can't stand her.

The "celebrity obsession" matches the "all Republican corruption all the time" obsession of Marshall. Both are just distractions from the real issues facing the US, which can't be handled by either site because it would offend the Israel Lobby.

As for Blumenthal. I'd say that if the mainstream media did their job, he wouldn't have to be putting up videos on YouTube. As Anton LaVey once said, if Christianity got the same study the media puts into sports every week, it would have disappeared decades ago.

I'd add that the state would have vanished, too, if the media were REALLY interested in "exposing corruption". But you can't be interested in exposing what you're a part of.

The bottom line is that the news media is part of the problem - always has been, always will be.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 3:33 AM

I'm with chris, more or less. Kirchik's first point in the post ([Blumenthal's work is] .. crashing crazy right-wing events and making the participants look dumb. It's not so hard to do, and this type of gotcha "journalism" is lazy and cuts both ways. A writer for National Review could just as easily attend an anti-war rally and find some wingnuts to lampoon.) is completely valid.

No, it's not (pity that Andrew doesn't have a comment function). The point is that the crazy wingnut faction in the Republican Party has a million times more influence on, well, the Republican Party than somy loony hippies on an anti-war ralley have on the Democrats.

But that's been the standard dodge of the Brooksian crowd for years: Ignore the christianist crazies, because hey, the Democrats have carzies, too! Bemoan the polarization in Washington, because both parties have gone so extremist and no one has any interest in bipartisanship anymore!

Never mind that the GOP has run to the extreme right, while the Democrats have gone more and more centrist over the last 15 years and have been screwed over the the Repubs time and again when they tried bipartisanship. But no one calls these very serious people on this shit.

Posted by Patrick | August 26, 2007 4:41 AM

Raimondo's take on Kirchick.

Posted by Kuks | August 26, 2007 9:37 AM

Kirchuk = Dumbfuck = Peretz suck. Up.

Just because Sullivan and Peretz take someone seriously doesn't mean you should. Why would you even take Sullivan or Peretz seriously?

Posted by Fuck Kirchuk | August 26, 2007 11:19 AM

. A writer for National Review could just as easily attend an anti-war rally and find some wingnuts to lampoon.) is completely valid.

Not valid at all, because the Young Republicans convention is an extension of the Republican party, and an anti-war rally is not an extension of the Democratic party.

Posted by Tyro | August 26, 2007 12:23 PM

I don't think Blumenthal comes off well at all in those videos. He basically just makes an ass out of himself...

MiniMax/Son o' Sid doesn't come off too very well in print either, making a ton of questionable statements as discussed at my name's link.

Posted by All about MiniMax | August 26, 2007 1:51 PM

"Wignuttery" is one of the better Yglesias typo-neologisms in recent weeks. It brings The Madness of King George to mind, which is quite fitting in context. I was mildly disappointed when I clicked the link and saw that the error was present in the original.

I guess we have to give Kirchick credit for this one. It may be the first original word he's penned.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 26, 2007 11:49 PM