Today, I read
Media Matters' story about Jake Tapper regarding a blog posting in which Mr. Tapper refers to Sen. Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." This is not the first time Tapper has done this, so I went to his blog to reply to it. I wrote: "How charming the insertion of Sen. Obama's middle name is. Don't worry that the WashPost has called the tactic sleazy--and it is--and muslim baiting. It's ridiculous, unnecessary, and unattractive."
And then Mr. Tapper wrote back:
I've referred to "Johnny Reid Edwards" on numerous occasions in the blog.
Obama's middle name happens to be Hussein. Just as Bill Clinton's full name is William Jefferson Clinton, which writers use on occasion as well.
I don't particularly find anonymous name-calling attractive.
Thanks for writing
jake
So here's my reply:
Mr Tapper,
I don't find Muslim-baiting "journalism" attractive, either. We all know that's why conservative commentators have taken to using the "Barack Hussein Obama" name; your repetition of it speaks volumes about your interestedness as a reporter. As the Washington Post correctly editorialized, those "who take pains to insert when referring to him are trying, none too subtly, to stir up scary images of menacing terrorists and evil dictators," and that using the middle name "would be merely juvenile if it weren't so contemptible."
I'm sorry you don't like "anonymous" feedback, whether positive or negative, from those of us who read blogs--even when it has an email address attached to it. But in Blogylvania, people post articles so people can comment on them. Welcome to the 21st century, where Muslim-baiting isn't an acceptable journalistic activity and people respond to what they don't like.
Best,