Mon Jan 6, 2003
Just got an interesting email from a reporter who said he was doing a story for the New York Times about Glenn Reynolds’s influence over us all. “I understand he may not be your favorite guy in the world” the email hinted darkly. I thought about getting quoted in the Times trashing Glenn. Reader, I was tempted. After all, I have been known at various times in the past to make the odd remark about Instapundit.
But then I thought that this probably wouldn’t be a good way to achieve the national prominence which I of course so richly deserve. And I couldn’t live with the image of Glenn reduced to tears by my ruthless attack. So I declined the invitation. Besides, frankly I’m afraid of having to face this guy. Brrr.
Update: Glenn mentioned this post on Instapundit, which naturally nearly melted my network connection. He’s been talking to the reporter, so hopefully the story will be written up. I don’t want to be unfair to the reporter any more than to Glenn. He was just looking for critical commentary, which is what reporters do—- clearly, stories like this ought to have a range of views, and a bit of criticism, in them. I just didn’t think I was the guy to provide it. (I thought the tone of my original post was light-hearted enough to make all this clear.) Andrew Sullivan’s comments notwithstanding, (a) I doubt that Howell Raines is taking time out of his busy day to plan “a hit job” on Glenn Reynolds and (b) the reporter wasn’t “sniffing around for dirt”, he was asking for critical comments. If I ever get any dirt on Glenn Reynolds, I’ll put it to much better use—- e.g., blackmail.
Update 2: Daniel Drezner insinuates that, while I “devote considerable efforts at mimicry” of him, I won’t trash Instapundit because I am “too dependant on Reynold’s links” and could “be bandwagoning”. Several responses spring to mind, not least that Daniel’s ubiquitous editor [He pops up every other paragraph—ed.] could be working a bit harder. I do wonder how I could be overly dependent on links from Instapundit, seeing as he only linked to me for the first time yesterday. And there are quite a few posts critical of Instapundit on this blog (like the ones linked to above), which I think is why the reporter emailed me in the first place.
So my conscience is clear. Rest assured, Daniel, that when the NYT wants me to dish the dirt on you, I won’t say a word about any of it. Not even the bit with the chickens.