I've often argued that there's a big problem when "civility" is considered a higher value than "the truth." But sometimes it's just funny. For complete info see the links; the fun comes in upon the discovery that Roger Ailes is apparently a big meanie, as is Steve Gilliard:
Others don't deserve to be heard because they don't know how to debate an issue with civility and dignity. But for the sake of being complete, I'll link to them as well: Roger Ailes and The News Blog.
The business about "debating an issue" is a nice touch, since this is not really an issue. It's just something Glover made up.
I frankly find the tone of Glover's article smarmy in the extreme. There's no ethical problem with anything any of the bloggers he discusses have done for any candidate. But he pretends there's a problem:
I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article.
That's the point of his article? "That band, like, totally sold out, dude, their first record was OK but then they went like all commercial"? That's the point? Oh brother.
UPDATE: I see that I, too, have been classified by the National Journal as one who does "not deserve to be heard." Huzzah!