IS J.L. KIRK AND ASSOCIATES AN EXAMPLE OF “AUTO-BORKING”?
When Ronald Reagan nominated the highly regarded but arch-conservative legal theorist Judge Robert Bork in 1987 to become a justice of the United States Supreme Court, liberal activist groups in conjunction with the then monolithic MSM, “swarmed”. Judge Bork was slandered by Senator Ted Kennedy in an opening salvo of an unprecedented political campaign by the Democrats to personally destroy a judicial nominee out of loathing for his judicial philosophy and fear of his intellectual prowess. Judge Bork’s nomination was duly defeated, the Reagan administration was dealt a severe political setback and a new verb entered the political lexicon; to be vilified and disqualified from a position was to be ” Borked”.
As Dan of tdaxp has ably documented, an obscure yet arrogant and allegedly shady, headhunting company known (currently- but I wager not for much longer) as J.L. Kirk and Associates has apparently accomplished the business equivalent of scoring on one’s own goal. By attempting to bully a blogger into silence about her ( seemingly legitimate) consumer complaint against them, J.L. Kirk ‘s corporate suits have ” Auto-Borked” their own company’s reputation. As Dan has reported, the story is now reaching regional TV news. I’m guessing national news before Friday of this week and then, perhaps, the sharks will begin circling J.L. Kirk until they reach their own ” Imus Moment”.
Good job boys! Just think of the trouble you might have avoided by being gracious and helpful to your customer instead of belligerent and aggressive. You’d almost think that a company that pro-actively litigious had something to hide
Curtis Gale Weeks:
April 17th, 2007 at 5:48 am
The regional news item on the Coble/Kirk affair is the one-sided sort of journalism decried in this post as “the then monolithic MSM.” The nominal journalist did not present a rebuttal by JLK in the news story, nor even mention attempting to contact JLK, etc., but was fairly happy, it would appear, to present the case as “poor, poor blogger — and her big-time friends Instapundit, etc..”
The nominal journalist, Brittney, is the one who left another post on her own blog titled, “JL Kirk & Associate Employee? Just Asking” about “the only person I’ve seen on the whole world wide interweb who has sided with JL Kirk & Associates.” I.e., anyone who sides with the JLK petition must necessarily be on that side in a dichotomous us-them formulation; or, a plant. This is typical of networked-truth, which is founded on loyalty rather fidelity, mafia rule rather than the rule of law, and is probably ultimately the result of a sense of powerlessness in bloggers.
Dan tdaxp:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Zen,
Someone (I forget you) noted that the best thing JL Kirk could have done would have been s short comment at the beginning that simply said “I am sorry we were unable to meet your needs or expectations. We wish you the best of luck in your job search,” and the second best thing would have been to do nothing.
Curtis,
By referencing “mafia,” you are implying a use of violence that simply doesn’t exist here. Indeed, by threatening a blogger with the courts, JL Kirk is the only party that has threatened (albeit lawful) violence.
I imagine you would have more sympathy for Coble, and less for JL Kirk, if you had been threatened with the same nonsense for posting a negative review.
Dan tdaxp:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
PS:
“known (currently- but I wager not for much longer) as J.L. Kirk and Associates”
Indeed.
Curtis Gale Weeks:
April 17th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Dan,
The mafia can use economic intimidation as well as guns and knives. I know from previous conversation that you equate threats with violence, however.
Dan tdaxp:
April 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Curtis,
A threat of violence may be classified as violence. Thus, JL Kirk’s response certainly was violent.
However, a threat of non-violence may not be. Thus, the blogosphere’s reaction certainly is nonviolent.
Curtis Gale Weeks:
April 17th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“A threat of violence may be classified as violence.”
Well, a threat of violence can be classified as “orange sherbert,” too. That’s the fun thing about classification and categorization.
So I suppose that we should have merely threatened Saddam with invasion, in future threaten convicted murderers with execution — no need to actually invade or execute, since the threat is equal to the kinetic act.
Curtis Gale Weeks:
April 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Dan, are you trying to say that the Blogospheric response was “rule of law”? Or are you merely utilizing a narrow description of mafia organization to sell your point?
Dan tdaxp:
April 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Curtis, could you rephrase?
reader_iam:
April 17th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Mark:
It appears that JL Kirk is backing down, that is, away from litigation, at least according to a post that Kat put up sometime today (April 17th). I would post the link, but I don’t know your policy about that for your comments section.