Dripping with arrogance

I hit the web this morning unaware of the WH shake-ups. Interesting stuff I thought to myself. As I continued on in my regular reading, I came across this piece of…well, you know what, disguised as journalism over at Vanity Fair.

Michael Wolff’s piece is the nastiest bit of stuff I’ve seen in a long time. Condescending and arrogant both, it is a text-book example of how to write a hit piece.

Others have looked at it as well. Tom Bevan at the RCP Blog and Tom Elia at The New Editor both note the unbridled arrogance of Wolff’s words.

From Bevan’s analysis: But given the hostility and contempt with which the press so often treats this White House, why on earth wouldn't McClellan want to have a record of what was said in the interview? It turns out McClellan's suspicions were fully justified - though if he knew just what a hatchet job Wolff already had in mind I'm sure he never would have agreed to sit down with him at all.

Were I McClellan, Wolff would be getting a second call; this one to give him an earful.

I remember the Reagan years with less than full-clarity; I was an apolitical HS sophomore when they began and only out of college for a year-and-a-half when they ended. It was clear that the press didn’t think much of the man, or of his Administration. But they were never rude, never in this blatant a fashion.

Will they ever figure out why fewer and fewer are reading and caring about what they have to say?