This should definitely be a thing.

Thanks to his transparently slanted piece on the Heritage Foundation’s panel on Benghazi, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank has made himself into (more of) a laughing stock.

Actually Milbanking has been around for quite a while. It’s at least as old as this post from National Review Online from Matthew J. Franck. The formal definition is perfect.

“To milbank,” as in the Washington Post’s columnist Dana Milbank, would mean “to opine about public affairs in a persistent state of adolescent sputtering, determined to learn nothing about the subject while having access to a wealth of information about it.”


(Franck reprised the idea more recently as well.)

The word was coined before Twitter, but it doesn’t look like it has ever been established as a hashtag. It needs to be established as a hashtag.