AZspot AZspot

blue bits. red rocks.
Tuesday 30 June 2009

But this is a quite common affliction in our political discourse. There are many people who love to opine pedantically and express all sorts of provocative opinions — as long as they don’t ever have to confront criticisms of those views. People like Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol will stay hiding on Fox News where they can spout all sorts of claims without challenge, but then refuse to be questioned about those views by someone like Bill Moyers. Rachel Maddow constantly invites prominent Republicans on her show so she can interview them, but most refuse. I can’t even imagine writing a column that caused as much anger as Shepard’s did — on a topic as obviously controversial as torture — and then refusing to discuss it with someone who led the objections to what I wrote. That’s why I’ve debated journalists I’ve criticized and have even gone on right-wing talk radio to discuss columns I wrote, and routinely respond to criticisms in the comment section to the posts I write. For reasons I’ve explained before — in response to a Marc Ambinder post advocating that pundits be more willing to engage those with whom they disagree — seeking out a public forum in which to express controversial views (as Shepard has done) entails the obligation to confront critics and criticisms. Refusing to do so is irresponsible cowardice that singularly enables reckless opining (The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus did the same thing after writing columns advocating that Bush officials not be investigated for the crimes they committed only to then refuse to be questioned about her views). Glenn Greenwald

A GNT creation ©2007–2011