Yes, she flings around the words "moonbat" and "unhinged" with abandon, but when she does, she also shows *and* tells you why she believes those words apply. You may not agree with her estimation, but you at least get the chance to see what she uses to form her opinion. Then you can disagree out in the open, using the same stuff she does.

I'd put Malkin on the same "tone" plateau as, say, the Bullmoose from the liberal side. He's definitely as arch and doesn't shrink from letting the invective fly when he wishes, but he's not vulgar, not threatening, and he backs up his name-calling with the reasons why the names apply.

One of the most disturbing things about political discourse post-911 is the widespread turn to the philosophy of: "If you disagree with me, you're not just wrong, or even stupid, you're evil." That's a guarranteed path to self-destruction, because groups that truly live by that creed can continue to exist only by having an active enemy to hate. Once the "real" enemy is no longer a threat, they will persecute unthreatening groups. Then they consume themselves in schism.

Reference the current state of the GOP... the general public (at least as far as the polls go) no longer believes terrorism will destroy the US - there's steadily decreasing support for the GWOT (or at least the Iraq detour). The Democrats (the usual fall-back bad guys) aren't organized enough to be turned into a "threat". So you see the splintering of the formerly-solid GOP base into groups of single-issue fanatics such as security hawks, budget-watchers, social/religious conservatives, etc.

Me, they couldn't care less about.

Be honest: which of us would you rather be?

I fear that such stuff is inevitable. There is, as Vnjagvet noted above, a larger reader for the tabloids than for serious journalism, larger audiences for cable TV than PBS or C-Span.

I do think it is harder for calm thoughtful voices to be heard, but there is a niche for them. I, and many others, are pining for more Volokhs and Marshalls, and we will find them. Niche-marketing - it can work. We will always have Budweiser, but microbrews can fluorish too.

Harsh, reasoned. ranting? Every blogger has a basic tone, though almost every blogger fluctuates, too. The reason the underlying url for RWV is carnivorous conservative is because typepad can't change it once you open the account. And I opened this...

In some ways that's bad--it is the kind of strident voice that turns many off.

But on the other hand, it can be very good. Malkin, like Anderson, shines a bright light on many things that our "leaders" (politicians and press) would prefer to keep hidden from us. And as with Anderson, it is the strident voice that garners attention and makes others feel they must respond.

Controversy is essential to our democracy. The consolidation of media ownership has reduced the variety of voices reoorting facts and expressing opinions in the "mainstream media.' Among other things, Malkin, Dailykos, and their ilk help make up for the demise of independently owned and edited newspapers and the replacement of yellow journalism by bland, do-not-offend mediocrity.

Why can't the blogosphere have this diversity of styles?

In this sense, diversity is good, isn't it?

Every other blog and blogger you note under the �calmer view� characterization has been operating for quite some time�three years or more and, in some cases, much longer. I think we need to ask ourselves would these same blogs and bloggers be able to get the audience they have now under the conditions that prevail now?

Michelle has been blogging for, what, 18 months? She streamed to the top from a standing start (at least partially on the basis of name recognition). Is it possible to do this in the more mature current phase of the blogosphere without being a bomb-thrower? I don't believe it.

I think we're going to see ever-greater partisanship and an ever-more-agonistic approach to blogging simply as a means of getting heard above the din.

Seriously James - read through some comment threads here, and then look at the vitriol, shrillness, and sometimes outright hatred in threads at Malkin or LGF. Even on the left, places like Kos and Atrios get unreadably shrill very quickly.

It's not just the partisan nature of modern politics, James. It's the sort of environment the blogger creates, and the sort of crowd the blogger attracts & fosters.

I have to look in from time to time--as I do at Kos, LGF, and others I find painful to read--but I'm much rather spend my time with those you point out as "calmer" or ""quite reasonable". My ears (and eyes) can take only so much...