Yesterday, Univision “real journalist” and super-special snowflake Cristina Costantini was busted for intellectual inconsistency. When writing about Wednesday’s honest, civil Twitter debate between Michelle Malkin and José Vargas, Costantini referred to Malkin as a “right-wing columnist.” By contrast, she called Vargas, an out-and-proud illegal immigrant and amnesty proponent a “journalist.” Evidently, Vargas’ bias wasn’t notable.

Costantini was taken aback when Malkin and Twitchy called her out on her sneakiness, and this morning, she penned an “earnest” column to tell her side of the story:

Here’s one of her “clarifications”:

I thought Michelle Malkin classified herself as a “right-wing columnist,” so I thought it would be an appropriate description. I made that assumption based on her website’s description of her here. I’ve amended her description to “conservative columnist” because she seems to prefer it for herself and seems to have objected to my prior naming. An editor also suggested last night that “right-wing” comes off as pejorative, while another editor said it does not. Does it? I didn’t think so, but let me know in the comments if you think it does. I’m also genuinely curious if Malkin finds “right-wing” to be inaccurate or vastly different from the word “conservative.”

Malkin took issue with being called “right-wing” as opposed to “conservative?” Um, no. The problem we have with Costantini’s form of “real journalism” is not that she acknowledges bias in others; it’s that she does not do so consistently. Why is ideology only pertinent when conservatives are concerned, but not when it comes to left-leaning members of the media? Costantini has failed to address the real problem. Is she being disingenuous? Is she just dense? We eagerly await her “earnest” response to those questions.



Since Costantini seems to have such a difficult time admitting that she did anything wrong, Malkin kindly broke it down for her:

These readers get it: