I picked this story up off the rack because the subtitle caught my eye: "sometimes he's actually right"? I was genuinely curious to see what you would say, but for pages I got nothing but discussion about how Horowitz is a nutty radical. No news there.
Then, you finally get around to what seems like it's the point: "But sometimes Horowitz does more than burnish a nugget of truth into a rockslide of indignation. Sometimes — as in the case of Florida State —he's actually right." Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I'm curious to see how you argue he doesn't just cherry-pick facts and blow them out of proportion, but is actually right about some things.
Instead we get a highly selective list of the few MSA members among thousands that have become terrorists. Wait--I think to myself--he's still cherry-picking; you can't construe this as evidence that all Muslim interest groups are bad. Fortunately, you end this section by acknowledging exactly this point: "In short: Broad-brushing the entire group is akin to labeling all evangelical Christians as freaks on parwith the Westboro Baptist Church. But Horowitz and his followers are willing to sew these instances into a distinctive pattern. Because that's just good business for David Horowitz." In other words, toparaphrase you by quoting you: he "burnish[ed] a nugget of truth into a rockslide of indignation."
Oh, and none of the nuggets of truth have anything to do with Florida State.The rest of the article continues to observe that Horowitz is a nutty radical, which, again, is not news.
You're a hack.