I was equating them–applying “changing your mind” also to when you later see a different position than the only one you’d thought possible to begin with.

It wasn’t just a matter of opinion. Malkin flat-out misquoted Busby, sticking in a period and an end quotation mark right in the middle of a sentence.

Confession time: I didn’t go back and read Michelle’s original entry before I wrote the above. I remembered reading it at the time; in fact hers was the entry I got the story from. I left MM.com believing Busby had said what Michelle said she did. I then went over to Patterico’s, listened to the audio myself, and thought otherwise. So I took your word for it that she hadn’t corrected it. But I went back and looked today and found a mishmash of interest.

Here’s Michelle’s entry.
I can’t prove it, but I think she altered the title after a lot of other people began saying that Busby actually meant what she later said she meant. I think this for two reasons: 1) I remember thinking, later on the day of the entry, that she had altered the title; and 2) That the title was originally more inflammatory is implied by “Oh yes she did.” in the entry. I think, though again I can’t prove it, that she corrected the title to its present form from something like “Candidate tells illegal he can vote without papers,” or something shorter to the same effect. So the title as it stands now is actually a partial correction, but I remember thinking at the time that it wasn’t enough of a correction. So on that score I agree with you–if she was going to put in a correction she should have made it clearer than changing the title but leaving in the entry all the stuff about illegals voting without IDs.

As for her originally quoting Busby as saying “You don’t need papers for voting.”, well, if you write down the audio as it occurred, without punctuation but putting in a marker every time Busby’s voice paused, she did pause between “voting” and her next phrase, which is exactly what caused all the fuss and confusion. If Michelle heard the audio and took it the way she (and Patterico) originally took it, then of course she put in a period there, because that was the way she heard it–the only way she could have heard it that would have given it that meaning. I don’t believe that rises to the level of “dowdifying.” If I’m right about the title change, and I know I must be, for the simple fact that although the quote still just says “you don’t need papers for voting” the title says Busby’s offense was recruiting illegal alien help, not telling illegals to vote, then what it means is that Michelle heard it the worse way first, quoted it that way–and I don’t blame her for that–then realized that’s not what she meant and corrected the title but not the rest of the entry.

So I’m reversing on the “she didn’t correct it because she didn’t believe the explanation” thing. She did believe the explanation, and she corrected the title, but not the entry, to reflect that. I agree with you that the correction doesn’t go far enough, but I disagree that the quote was dowdified in the first place. That was the reasonable place to put the period–where Busby’s voice paused and gave rise to the original misunderstanding to begin with. Where we agree is that Michelle should have corrected the rest of the entry–and the quote–along with changing the title. It NOW looks as if the quote was dowdified because she didn’t change it to reflect what Michelle herself apparently now believes Busby meant, based on the title of her entry.

Okay. Second item: Hot Air being a BINO. This one’s real simple for me: As long as Allah and Bryan are blogging at Hot Air, it will always be a blog. It cannot be defined as a news site when almost every item is cushioned and surrounded by their opinions and his links to the opinions of other bloggers. I mean, isn’t that what you were on about, that their opinions sometimes inform the errors of others? Without those opinions, yes, it would be a news site. With them, it’s a blog.

I’m sympathetic to Xrlq’s concern about very popular blogs becoming sources of “news” rather than sources of “opinion,” but it seems to me this indicates a problem with the reader and not the speaker. I can feel some (much) pity for someone who reads Malkin and immediately internalizes her message as if it were Gospel, but the reader has made his or her choice to do so. Some people get all of their “news” from The Daily Show too — equally sad.

Malkin and Stewart can both be faulted for taking facts and statements out of context and both outlets have their dedicated (deluded? rabid?) fans. Neither outlet allows for direct feedback or rebuttal — the former is a blog without comments (or limited comments), the latter is a television broadcast. Both are private enterprises with finite resources and no particular obligation to host or promote alternate opinions. The difference from my point of view is that Stewart knows he’s making a joke; I don’t think Malkin quite understands how unintentionally funny she can be.

Perhaps it would have been more equitable for me to compare Kos to Malkin since they move within the same medium and have their respective share of unbounded (unhinged?) hangers-on. Doesn’t really change my argument. Kos is an unintentional laugh riot too.

Disagree with me if you want to — you’ll still be wrong. :-D

The fact that Michelle didn’t say so presumably means she didn’t change hers. She’s entitled. Xrlq’s therefore entitled to think what he likes of Michelle’s reasoning skills, but again, to demand a correction of what is essentially an opinion is, I think, a waste of breath.

It wasn’t just a matter of opinion. Malkin flat-out misquoted Busby, sticking in a period and an end quotation mark right in the middle of a sentence. The only reason she didn’t believe Busby’s subsequent clarification is because she had already committed herself to her own, hacked off version of Busby’s quote instead of the real one.

It seems to me as though Xrlq’s taking Hot Air to task for the very things that make blogs blogs and not older media.

That’s basically correct. The best things about decentralized blogs don’t apply to those with ridiculously high traffic, closed or no comment systems, etc., especially if people rely on the site as a news source, as many do. At some point a blog stops being a blog, and is just another news web site. I put Hot Air in that category; it’s a BINO.