January 3rd, 2005
Blogger Patterico has sent an email to Power Line. Scott Johnson says, “Patterico seems to think that he has previously asked us to link to his posts.” Patterico’s email reads:
Why am I taking one more stab at getting Power Line to link my L.A. Times Year in Review? It’s all about Lynne Cheney.
See, I come to the defense of Dick Cheney a couple of times in the posts, and I’d like him to know about it. I figure that, if you guys link my review, Lynne Cheney might read it–and maybe she’ll tell her husband about it. It’s a longshot, but it’s worth a try.
So, even though the review was linked by Instapundit, Lucianne.com, Hugh Hewitt, Captain Ed, and others–I’m still not satisfied. I gotta have Lynne Cheney see it! And for that, it’s Power Line or bust. The links are Part One (coverage of the election, including the Times’s misrepresentation of one of Dick Cheney’s remarks), and Part Two (other coverage–including the duck-hunting trip with Dick Cheney and Justice Scalia).
Either way, I promise this is the last e-mail I’ll send you asking for a link for these pieces. . . .
-
Even though Patterico runs a decent operation at his own site and at Oh, That Liberal Media, I’ve noticed he’s a bit too earnest for his own good. For example, he cross-posts every single post he writes for OTLM to his own site. And he seems to spend all waking hours composing letters to the LAT which (he knows) will never see the light of day. But hey, more power to him.
-
Just saw this post today. Couple things:1) I didn’t realize the Power Line folks would publish my e-mail. It surprised me to see it on their site.Why did I write it that way?I had sent an e-mail to a few specific bloggers whom I thought might be interested in the pieces. Many linked it; the Power Line guys didn’t.I didn’t expect everyone to link the pieces, but I was a little surprised Power Line hadn’t. The topic of the pieces seemed right up their alley, and they had linked me before on pieces I was far less proud of.So I wondered whether they had perhaps simply overlooked my initial e-mail. And indeed, they had.But I couldn’t *assume* that. So I couldn’t write them and say: “Surely you must have overlooked my earlier e-mail, otherwise you would have linked my pieces.” So I tried to find a humorous tack to take — one that wouldn’t offend them if they had indeed seen my e-mail, and had made a conscious decision not to link the posts.Turns out my little tongue-in-cheek e-mail got published. It was a little surprising — but it resulted in Michael Ledeen delivering a copy of the posts to Lynne Cheney, so I was happy with the end result.Sorry you thought it was undignified. I suppose it wasn’t the height of dignity, but 1) I don’t generally take myself that seriously, and 2) I had worked really, *really* hard on these posts (have you read them?) and wanted the widest possible audience for them.I’m disappointed you appear to have thought less of me as a result. But I’d do the same thing again — perhaps with one change: I’d ask them not to publish my e-mail. (And then Lynne Cheney might not have seen the posts. So maybe I wouldn’t do anything differently after all.)Anyway, I like your site. Very dignified! Heard a nice plug for you from Hugh Hewitt today as well.To WWB: I have barely ever written a letter to the LAT for publication. Most of my e-mails are to the Reader’s Representative, seeking corrections, or asking the paper to report a particular angle or story. To date, I have obtained several corrections, and the paper ran a front-page story about Justice Ginsburg based on a tip of mine. So I don’t believe that I am wasting my time, as you seem to imply.Also, every post I do on OTLM is a post I have done on my site. I am cross-posting to OTLM, not the other way around. My first allegiance is to my own site and my own readers, but when I have a post that fits OTLM, I post it there too, with a message that I am cross-posting so people don’t wonder why the same post is on two different sites.
-
Oh, and one more thing:Love me, love me, love me!Notice me, notice me, notice me!
Anonymous January 4, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Ew. Even Jonah Goldberg isn’t quite THAT obvious about his self-promotion. Love me, love me, love me! Notice me, notice me, notice me!