Albert Eisele, so quaint
Oh, Albert Eisele, you’re such a cutie. Such a throwback. I so enjoy reading the quaint words of a Beltway Brontasaurus like yourself, so obviously ignorant and petrified of the Intarweb that you recoil in terror when it paws at you like a hissing housecat. No, I’m serious. It’s really, really cute.
Little did I know, being a creature of the typewriter/telegraph era of journalism, that cybergossip Matt Drudge would pounce on the item and transmit it to the farthest regions of the Internet universe, along with an unflattering photograph of Ms. Thomas. That was all Drudge acolytes needed to unleash a flood of e-mails condemning her — and me, as her unwitting accomplice.
Oh. I understand. Back in “your day,” when a man published something, he could expect that other people wouldn’t republish it. Boy, back when folks had respect!
Dearest Albert, the truth is that no one actually cares about you. They care about your supposed friend, Helen Thomas, and the vitriol you so quaintly exposed with your quaint little column. If you think the Intarweb and its “slack-jawed degenerate(s)”
have it out for you, I guess you ain’t been in the biz long enough.
August 18th, 2005 at 11:13 am
I want to compliment the unnamed person who hyperventilated over my recent column about l’affair Helen Thomas. Beltway Brontasauras? Talk about cute. Gag me with a spoon cute.
He or she makes so many unwarranted assumptions that I hardly know where to start. First of all, my column was written with tongue-in-cheek, obviously too subtle for the anonymous expert media critic to grasp, just as Helen Thomas — who is a professional acquaintance but hardly a close friend — was hardly serious about offing herself if Cheney runs for president.
Second, my criticism of certain Drudge acolytes was aimed at those few, but unfortunately too many, of the more than 400 comments I received who were unable to express their views about Ms. Thomas, me and the biased, lying, manipulative mainstream press in anything more than the most vile, vicious and obscene terms. You want vitriol? I’ll be glad to forward to the above critic some of the gutter language response I received if he or she wishes.
Third, stories that appear in The Hill, are often picked up by other newspapers, broadcast organizations and websites/bloggers, and we reporters with big egos welcome that, as CNN, the AP, Fox and other media outlets picked up my exclusive story about the thwarted mass prisoner escape from Camp Bucca, Iraq, in April.
Finally, dearest critic — the language seems to indicate that my mysterious critic is a woman — I have been in the business for quite some time, more than 40 years to be exact. But said critic won’t have to worry about me any more since I’ve just announced my retirement on Sept. 1, to do some other things with my life, which fortunately, won’t include responding to such hissing housecats. My final column, number 516 in 11 years, and the news about my pending retirement — heartbreaking for the few people who do care about me, I’m sure — can be read on our website — yes, I do know something about the post-typewriter/telegraph communications techology, having previously worked for a supercomputer company — .
To paraphrase the late Richard Nixon, “You won’t have Albert Eisele to kick around any more because, ladies and gentlemen, this is my last column.”
August 18th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Wait, wait. “Unnamed?”
Was the Tom Sherman plastered all over this site’s footer (and elsewhere, since I’m so freakin narcissistic) not clear enough? I guess that was “obviously too subtle for the (non-)anonymous expert media critic to grasp.”
I do appreciate the assumption that I’m female, though. There’s something endearing in that. I think. Maybe.
You’re free to forward whatever viscious and vile e-mails you’d like. My e-mail address is clearly posted on this site. I get plenty of viscious and vile comments on this blog, so I’m sure the language will be familiar (and probably entertaining).
Here’s the bottom line: Don’t take the insults of the Drudge folks personally, and don’t puff yourself up over it either. It makes no sense to me why anyone would be mad at you over the “l’affair Helen Thomas,” since all you did was report the facts. Look up at my original comments; never did I indict you for your interview or for publishing Haggard Helen’s comments.
What I did indict you for is your lack of understanding of new media. I think your comment to my blog confirms this. Albert, it’s not about you and Helen, it’s about your reaction to the people who hate Helen Thomas. If they wrongly mix you with her, that’s their problem. I think you should have the dignity to rise above their misplaced emotion. Your column proved you didn’t have that. I criticized you for that. You came my blog and mixed me in with the “Drudge acolytes.” Is that a veteran response?
August 20th, 2005 at 9:17 am
My apologies to Tom Sherman for not seeing his name or website after somebody told me of his comment and I googled it up — a verb I first heard used by then House Majority Leader Dick Armey several years ago.
I checked underscorebleach.net and it lives up to its billing as a good way of wasting one’s time, but is well-written and amusing. As a former pitcher in the Cleveland Indians organization, I enjoyed his take on the sports world, and would encourage him to spend more time on it than on politics and the media.
But he has a point in his criticism of my response to the Helen Thomas affair. Perhaps I do lack understanding of the new media, which allows everyone, sane or profane, to do for free what I get paid to do. At any rate, I think this dialogue with Drudge acolytes — not a perjorative term — not only has reached but gone well beyond the point of diminishing returns, and I’ll bow out of it, still mindful that wherever the criticism of me comes from, or however it’s expressed, I won’t, to paraphrase the Mafia code, take it personally because it’s just business.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:48 am
I do appreciate the compliment.
I also appreciate you dropping by to visit, since I do believe I understand the situation and your view better now. And you’re right; any half-baked jerk with 3 minutes can get a blogspot account and start shoveling more “media commentary” into the depths of the Internet.
For anyone who drops by from a search engine and reaches this page, I suggest you read Mr. Eisele’s “Open letter to Drudge,” which pretty much shuts the door on this mini-controversy (and mini-mini-follow-up-controversy).
Finally, I’ll offer a simple theory: I’m willing to bet you got 400 nasty e-mails from 400 nasty Drudge readers because they couldn’t find Helen Thomas’ e-mail address. I’m willing to bet the vitriol directed your way was a matter of mere convenience. Your e-mail addressed is right out in the open; where’s Helen’s?
September 8th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Dear writer,
I sincerley apologise for my comment yesterday. I am in high school in Australia and i was mucking around with my friends. i really hope that you accept my apologies as they are very true. i feel very bad.
Yours truly
Kelly
September 8th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
The Internet is weird!