You have every right to your personal opinion
Indeed - as do you.
You even have a right to an opinion,
all while shielding your eyes to avoid looking and/or seeing .....
but you're going to have to do better than "implications" that Michelle made and using wikipedia as a solid source,
Nah .... actually I don't - all I have to do is hold out
the possibility ..... and invite others to then take a look .....
You are making the mistake of assuming that when I write on here, I am writing to you - or some other party who I appear to be responding to.
Often I'm really not - many times what I write is intended for those that read, and don't ever post ..... the intention is to get others to think .... to question ..... and to consider another viewpoint or possibility besides their own ...... or the so-called mainstream "conventional wisdom" ......
I usually don't waste my time trying to convince the "true believers" (
although it might appear that way to some) ..... generally no convincing is even possible - one could show a picture of the Earth, taken from the Moon, to a flat-Earther, and they would deny it ..... claim it had been doctored in Photoshop or something ... and that the Earth was indeed flat.
I can't rely on a "source" that is edited by "anyone and everyone".
While it might well be edited by
anyone, I'm fairly sure that it is not edited by
everyone .....
Had you bothered to actually look up Michelle Malkin on Wikipedia, you would have seen the article that I cited contains numerous citations (and links to them) as to the source material that the article is based on - many of them from Michelle Malkin's website itself, in her own words - as well as such dubious sources as the New York Times and The Boston Globe (which, admittedly, can certainly be wrong at times - just like any source, since they are all written by humans)
Of course, I understand your trepidation at relying on such a source as Wikipedia - in that case, one could always just read the numerous sources cited on Wiki's Malkin page - many of which (all ?) are accessible on the web - and then draw one's own conclusion to what it all means .....
One could even go so far as to Google the matter and look for other sources as well, to try and counter the possibility of any Wikipedia "agenda" ....
But in order to do that, one would have to at least
be willing to look ...... in the first place.
Reading the articles mentioned above gives some insight into the actual use on the right/conservative/Republican side of "echo chambers" to try and make a story seem "true" or valid. BTW - they certainly don't have a lock on it - the left/liberal/Democratic side does it as well .... either way (or side), it is misleading at best, and inherently dishonest.
That makes it no different than a blog unless the blog lists their sources, as Michelle Malkin always does.
Yeeaah .... well .... pretty much addressed above .....
But here's the real deal: citing a source, while certainly a good thing (in terms of giving one more thing with which to evaluate the veracity of the information someone is trying to push off on you) it is never any guarantee of said information being accurate, or true ..... it just merely evidence that someone else also said it. One could cite sources till the cows come home .... and it would not make anything anymore factual, or anymore "true", if in reality it wasn't.
To drive the point home a little further of what it is I'm really trying to get at, I'll tell you what happens with me, when I watch one of these media pundits or celebs (from either the left or the right) on the tele .... which is pretty rare these days - simply because I have learned over time that very rarely is there is much in the way of actual, useful information to be gained .... most of what is there comes with an agenda - and prolonged exposure to this crap is hazardous to ones health (mental, spiritual, and possibly physical)
I will see them say some thing
where they just totally nail it .... they get it right
in one small aspect - that's great and fine and all .... the problem generally arises fairly quickly:
they continue to talk -
often because they are so enamored with the sound of their own voices (a dangerous thing to be sure - ask
me how
I know
)
.... and it just goes off the rails from there ....
The point is, while one might have immense admiration for a few certain, select things one of these .... ahhh .....
media 
s .... might say ..... one has to be very, very careful in terms of agreeing with them
wholesale .... as many times it is not readily apparent what the
full package is that one is buying into ..... and I can tell you with absolute certainty that sitting back and
accepting a constant inflow of others thoughts whilst nodding one's head in agreement, does not raise one's own ability to think or reason .....
in fact, it does the exact opposite.
On that note: kudos to you for recommending
a book to read ..... a potentially less harmful alternative to be sure .....
