Hey, progressive bloggers, can you please, please stop using Robert Fisk's name as a verb? The veteran reporter for The Independent has been a staunch, pointedly critical source of news about the Middle East for years, a beacon in the smog of propaganda that passes for reportage on this side of the pond. For reasons that make absolutely no sense (see the comments to this post), warmonger troglodyte bloggers started using his name a while back to mean "assiduously refute a blog post." It has an unpleasant sexual ring, as in "fisting."
To be less precise, Wikipedia defines it as "a point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or a news story." But why should this be associated with Fisk, as opposed to any other journalist? It's not like the term "bowdlerize," meaning censor, which was named for a man named Bowdler, a censor. There is some etymology in the comments: apparently the term originated with Andrew Sullivan or Instacracker, but it is nonsensical, even as a smear. In any case, given that these blowhards mean it as an insult, why would anyone opposed to Bush's various wars want to do that? Robert Fisk is our friend. Jane Hamsher, others, could you please stop using it? It's even worse that writing "ANWR" instead of Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a trick right out of Frank Luntz's pro-pollution handbook.
I'm not sure from your post if you already know this: Robert Fisk was assaulted by Afghan refugees in Dec. 2001, while reporting. They seemed to have mistaken him for a representative of the Western govts then bombing Afghanistan. He wrote a piece for the Independent describing the assault and stated that he had some sympathy with his attackers because of all they had gone through. At that point right wing warbloggers like Sullivan began using the term to refer to one blogger insulting another. Typical vile rightwing attack. Glen Greenwald has some recent stuff about rightwingers puffed up on their own bravery behind a keyboard disparaging those who are actually in the field.
I knew about the Afghan attack on Fisk, and that he wasn't sufficiently vengeful in his expressed feelings towards his attackers to satisfy the warblogger creep legions. I still don't get how any of that leads to "fisk" as a verb. I mean logically. It wouldn't surprise me if Sullivan started it--the "fisting" connotation makes sense coming from that particular self-loathing gay man. It's one thing for a term like that to arise because a certain person behaved in a certain way. "Bowdlerize" meaning censor came from a censorious individual named Bowdler. In this case, Fisk isn't known for careful parsing of arguments on other's blogs any more than any other talent he might have as a writer. Nor is he someone you have to constantly correct, the way you might with say, Ann C**ter (if anyone cared about her). It seems like an act of pure spite--to associate someone's name with something aggressive or unpleasant just because you have that power as a writer. Most of the warbloggers who gleefully used the term "fisk" to mean "dismantle a lefty blogger's argument" were just parroting approved buzzwords. I realize Firedoglake, et al, are using it ironically. But they shouldn't. I think I hate it because it's so inane as much as because it's a smear.
Here's wikipedia's explanation. The idea of Sullivan and Instacracker picking on someone else's veracity is comical. Regarding the incident in Afghasnistan, I couldn't image either of them taking a bigger risk than crossing against the light.
Thanks. I know what the right wing bloggers say "fisking" is--one of them probably wrote that Wikipedia entry (notice it calls Sullivan's essay "trenchant"). But is it a coherent explanation?
How does the definition get from
"to make an argument after you are attacked expressing sympathy for your attackers"
to
"to make a ruthlessly detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay"?
Aren't those two completely different things?
|
Hey, progressive bloggers, can you please, please stop using Robert Fisk's name as a verb? The veteran reporter for The Independent has been a staunch, pointedly critical source of news about the Middle East for years, a beacon in the smog of propaganda that passes for reportage on this side of the pond. For reasons that make absolutely no sense (see the comments to this post), warmonger troglodyte bloggers started using his name a while back to mean "assiduously refute a blog post." It has an unpleasant sexual ring, as in "fisting."
To be less precise, Wikipedia defines it as "a point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or a news story." But why should this be associated with Fisk, as opposed to any other journalist? It's not like the term "bowdlerize," meaning censor, which was named for a man named Bowdler, a censor. There is some etymology in the comments: apparently the term originated with Andrew Sullivan or Instacracker, but it is nonsensical, even as a smear. In any case, given that these blowhards mean it as an insult, why would anyone opposed to Bush's various wars want to do that? Robert Fisk is our friend. Jane Hamsher, others, could you please stop using it? It's even worse that writing "ANWR" instead of Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a trick right out of Frank Luntz's pro-pollution handbook.
- tom moody 9-02-2006 3:59 am
I'm not sure from your post if you already know this: Robert Fisk was assaulted by Afghan refugees in Dec. 2001, while reporting. They seemed to have mistaken him for a representative of the Western govts then bombing Afghanistan. He wrote a piece for the Independent describing the assault and stated that he had some sympathy with his attackers because of all they had gone through. At that point right wing warbloggers like Sullivan began using the term to refer to one blogger insulting another. Typical vile rightwing attack. Glen Greenwald has some recent stuff about rightwingers puffed up on their own bravery behind a keyboard disparaging those who are actually in the field.
- anonymous (guest) 9-05-2006 12:30 am
I knew about the Afghan attack on Fisk, and that he wasn't sufficiently vengeful in his expressed feelings towards his attackers to satisfy the warblogger creep legions. I still don't get how any of that leads to "fisk" as a verb. I mean logically. It wouldn't surprise me if Sullivan started it--the "fisting" connotation makes sense coming from that particular self-loathing gay man. It's one thing for a term like that to arise because a certain person behaved in a certain way. "Bowdlerize" meaning censor came from a censorious individual named Bowdler. In this case, Fisk isn't known for careful parsing of arguments on other's blogs any more than any other talent he might have as a writer. Nor is he someone you have to constantly correct, the way you might with say, Ann C**ter (if anyone cared about her). It seems like an act of pure spite--to associate someone's name with something aggressive or unpleasant just because you have that power as a writer. Most of the warbloggers who gleefully used the term "fisk" to mean "dismantle a lefty blogger's argument" were just parroting approved buzzwords. I realize Firedoglake, et al, are using it ironically. But they shouldn't. I think I hate it because it's so inane as much as because it's a smear.
- tom moody 9-05-2006 1:17 am
Here's wikipedia's explanation. The idea of Sullivan and Instacracker picking on someone else's veracity is comical. Regarding the incident in Afghasnistan, I couldn't image either of them taking a bigger risk than crossing against the light.
- mark 9-05-2006 2:18 am
Thanks. I know what the right wing bloggers say "fisking" is--one of them probably wrote that Wikipedia entry (notice it calls Sullivan's essay "trenchant"). But is it a coherent explanation?
How does the definition get from
"to make an argument after you are attacked expressing sympathy for your attackers"
to
"to make a ruthlessly detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay"?
Aren't those two completely different things?
- tom moody 9-05-2006 2:38 am