printThe following is excerpted from y “One more Media Matters con man,” now on WND.COM:
“Terry Krepel authors a website called ConWebWatch. ‘The focus of ConWebWatch,’ Krepel declares on the site, is ‘the ConWeb—large, well-funded, Internet-based conservative ‘news’ organizations [such as] NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.com.’ (I’ve inserted words in parenthesis so as to alert the reader to the edit. Accurate reporting should enable readers to distinguish editorial from authorial input.)
As a biographical note, Krepel adds that he ‘became employed by Media Matters for America in July 2004.’ At his Huffington-Post perch, Krepel is duly described as a ‘Media Matters senior editor.’ Media Matters for America purports to be a ‘progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.’
Our ace writer ought to have stated that he has been employed at Media Matters since 2004. ‘I became employed’ thus might be ugly English for, ‘I was once but am no longer employed by Media Matters.’ Conversely, perhaps this is a fellow whose intelligible written English is confined to the words ‘racial discrimination’?
Himself Krepel describes as ‘a veteran of 17 years in professional journalism as a newspaper writer, designer and editor. I know the ins and outs of the business and how it can be used and misused—and I see how the conservative Internet media is misusing journalism.’
His mission Krepel defines as documenting ‘the distortions, excesses and hypocrisy of these conservative media sites.’ Almost daily Krepel will dissect what Joseph Farah, Erik Rush, Aaron Klein, Jerome Corsi and others on WND.com and CNSNews.com have to say.
His method, crows Krepel, is to ‘hoist the conservative media on the petard of hypocrisy, accuracy and objectivity’ by ‘using their own words.’
Untrue; at least in my case.
Krepel has libeled me, but not by ‘using [my] own words'” … Disputes about democracy notwithstanding, there can be no disagreement over Krepel’s crappy journalism.”…
The complete column is “One more Media Matters con man,” now on WND.COM.
My new book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” is available from Amazon.
A newly formatted, splendid Kindle copy is also on sale.
UPDATE I (Sep. 2): With the same ease with which Krepel left-off quotations around my original words—so as to seamlessly introduce his interpretations of those words—so too could this purveyor of crappy journalism have suddenly “added” the required quotations, once exposed. In anticipation, I have captured the original (June 12) Krepel item. The omission begins with, “Washington and Westminster,” and ends with “the disaster that is post-apartheid South Africa.” Here it is in the original:
UPDATE II: A LIBERAL’S MORAL COMPASS. Terry Krepel thinks he has hit a home run on the Facebook thread at “One more Media Matters con man.” There, Krepel implies that Eugene Terre’Blanche deserved to die, even though the old man was the non-aggressor at the crime scene, and had served his time in jail for his past transgressions (which I am not here adjudicating).
Heaven’s! I’m speechless. All Krepel has demonstrated is that left-liberals (like himself) are every bit as blood thirsty and bereft of a moral compass as the neoconservatives they often critique.
Every remotely sane individual can see where this kind of sentiment leads. And every libertarian can see why the US is in such terrible moral shape. There is no difference between affiliates of the political factions as far as ethics go. “So long as my guy is killing off the guys I dislike—I’m WINNING”: That’s the pervading mindset. Justice be damned.
Which species is worse – the Soros lackey of Media Matters or a neocon with a radio show?
You know the drill, Mercer. If you don’t genuflect in the correct direction and cowtow to the accepted lies of the left, especially with non-whites and homosexuals you become a target of the misinformation machine. They have evolved into a generation of self indulged liars that have been taught that lies and slander are perfectly OK if directed at aomeone who doesn’t parrot the party line. At least you have the temerity to fight back. Keep it up.
Well, at least we now know the half-life of the Krepel isotope – it takes seventeen years for a professional journalist to decay into a hall monitor.
[Chuckle.]
Be glad he’s not designing spacecraft.
…or bagging your bananas.
[What does this phrase mean?]
Good Morning Ilana,
I’ve just finished reading today’s WND Commentary section and your article in it subsequent to initially reading your article here.
Weeks ago, I had bought and read “…Cannibal’s Pot”. I did not then and nor do not now think it is a racist position story. It rests in my mind as a telling of what was and what now is the status of the country.
I am originally from Detroit. Most old Detroiters who are white or black know about the 1943 riots as well as the 1967 ones. There were problems – fact.
What was once a predominately white populated city is now a predominately black populated city. Sounds like South Africa to me. It has become the poster child of “what not to do when you run a city”. There are any number of books, news reports, etc. detailing the history of its decline and the causes.
Now, I COULD BE ACCUSED OF RACISM by just writing these words. But, there exists some very funny things called FACTS that stand alone and can be researched by anyone.
It seems Terry Krepel was not very objective in his reading of your book.
One of the points I took-away from my reading of it was that government and rulers can change, but that alone does not prevent the new government and its rulers from enacting better, same, or worse laws and punishments.
The changes have to occur one person at a time – avoiding revengeful thinking and actions – so objective, moral, and workable solutions can be implemented. In that manner, a country – as Sean R. has always defined it – can peacefully exist and prosper.
Ilana, I commend you on writing what I believe to be a very objective recounting of what was and what is. FACTS are not racist. Mr. Krepel, Please note that and if you do a rebuttal, cite your reasons – factually.
Well I see this Krepel character has chosen to post on the “comments” section of your WND article. In true liberal fashion, I see no actual refuting of facts just mud slinging and name calling. It’s amazing how they always fall back on the same old tactics. I wonder how nervous it’s making them that their old tricks are becoming less and less effective every time they use them? Oh how I bet they pine for the good old days when they could scream (or insinuate for that matter) RAAAACIST and people would scurry for the bushes.
Ilana:
First: You’re putting words in my mouth. I did not say Terreblanche “deserved to die”; I merely pointed out that it’s not surprising that a man who led such a violent life — leading people to their deaths, beating someone into a coma — had his life end in such a violent fashion. You, meanwhile, seem to have a problem admitting that Terreblanche is a militant white supremacist, so I was doing that for you.
Second: The anti-apartheid cred you claim flies in the face of your actual behavior, which includes 1) refusing to criticice Eugene Terreblanche’s white supremacism, 2) your suggestions that blacks are too stupid to govern, and 3) [the fact that you’ve published some op-eds] with VDARE, whose founder describes it as “white nationalist.”
All I’ve done is “unclear” blog formatting and point out what you won’t about Terreblanche. It seems to me you have a lot more to answer for than I do.
(1) I fully intended to write the review today but I wanted to bring in your book to cite page 178
Verbatim which I think is very important for three reasons:
1.1.: While ANY change will have people who benefit and people who become worse off, the fact that black living standards and economic measures have declined while they rose under Apartheid is a critical fact.
1.2. One would naturally expect that the “high status” of white “interior ministry police” types would drop in a transition from a repressive white rule. (just emphasizing point 1.1) –if that was the only “bad aspect” of the transition, it would not be worth writing a fortune cookie over, not to mention a well documented book.
1.3 Thus, the fact that South Africa is going to hell for blacks as well as whites is also a perfect example of why your book is a defense of “classical liberalism” and individual rights, not a manual for white supremacy. If post-apartheid South Africa became a Singapore with white millionaires and black millionaires living beside one another with respect for private property rights, I seriously doubt you would be writing a critique of post-apartheid South Africa.
(2) . Krepel’s FIRST fallacy is based on the logical flaw: A dislikes C and B dislikes C and therefore A equals B.
2.1 Simple example of the logical flaw: A = Rabbi Menachem Schneerson and B = Joseph Stalin And C = Hitler and under the Krepel equation, Schneerson = Stalin.
2.2.. Specific case, A = Ilana Mercer and B = whatever “violent white racist” (which I sadly concede exist) Can be drudged up out of the gutter and used to attack Ilana Mercer by false analogy.
(3) Krepel’s SECOND fallacy deals with Eugene Terreblanche.
3.1. Ilana’s 9 April column was focused on rapes, looting, and murders against Afrikaner farmers, one of the victims being Terreblanche. I did not see any “lionizing” of any “crimes” that Terreblanche did or did not commit.
3.2. Assuming that Terreblanche was a racist and criminal who received and served a sentence for criminal activity, that makes him no more “deserving” of being bludgeoned to death that a woman with an active sex life is “deserving” of being raped.
3.3. All people are entitled to rights to life, liberty, and property regardless of whether they are white, black, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, gay, monogamous, fat, thin, racist, smart, stupid, witty, dull … and it is somewhat regrettable that the advocates of “toleration” seem perfectly willing to condone attacks on those whom they believe to be insufficiently “tolerant”.
Ho ho, who wuodla thunk it, right?