Uh oh, Craig, I think we’re starting to cross that line, where there’s blow back from the blow back—now everyone is attacking Selena Roberts . . .

I agree with the overall premise - that her past “work” should not give her mainstream credibility in her opinion over A-Rod, except two things - 1) she’s a writer, so in MSM’s eyes she has “credibility,” especially over a steroid-taking, morally deficient ogre like A-Roid (or so they tell me), and 2) because of that, it’s a true literary piece, not one designed to stir the A-Rod pot. 

Obviously, you’ve pointed out those two principles are exactly the opposite of Selena Robert’s position/motive - the “smell” test tells me she has malicious motives in writing this book, and to trust her “sources”/thoughts over A-Rod’s/other’s “sources”/thoughts is ludicrous . . .

But, man, such venom against her.  Just because she refuses to acknowledge she was wrong about the Duke thing, doesn’t mean that she’s wrong about the “culture” she was talking about - namely, if you’ve been a varsity/college athlete/frat guy (as I have) in sports that promote that American macho-violence thing (i.e. football, lacrosse, etc., as I have), you would know that “culture” she is referring to does exist.  It doesn’t mean what happened at the Duke party was criminal (hell, I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened - but it seems like it was wild).  But to turn a blind eye to her overall point, that there is a culture that *treads the line* of criminal / violent / abusive, is to be turning a blind eye.  I don’t agree with her motives, nor do I trust her opinion (especially after reading that Billy B. piece - shees, what a MSM anti-saber hack), but she’s not *all* wrong or *all* bad . . .

I agree with all of that.  I just have a damn Con Law exam coming up, and I am in an argumentative mood, and trying to play Selena’s advocate. 

That’s why I was saying that this entire issue is a bastion of the MSM/blogging cultural war.  I really believe that.  And that Beane piece proved to me that she is about the story at all costs, and even when there isn’t one (i.e. Duke crime) she will create one for readership.  That’s the old way the “facts” were written about. 

The problem is, even if this is only 2-3 years after she started writing the book, I think the mainstream has started to lean towards believing blindly in the credibility of newspaper writers/MSM without questioning it.  So hence the flak she is getting . . .