Most Disgusting Performance by a News Toady

Everyone’s still laughing at BS-artist Brian Williams, the TV news anchor whom we now recognize as a compulsive liar.

But it would be a huge mistake to think he was the only waste of space in the nooze business. Ever since The New York Times’ Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for serving as Joe Stalin’s one-man cheering section in the 1930s, big-time journalism in America has attracted big-time schmucks.

Before Williams could get himself out of the tar pit, a few days ago, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry conducted an alleged interview with Attorney General Eric “the Bag Man” Holder, in which she barely restrained herself from crawling into his lap and nibbling on his ear. She then embarrassed Holder by asking him to quack like a duck ( ). Holder declined.

But when it came to fawning over Democrats, Dan Rather remains the all-time champion boot-licker. In a May 27, 1993, interview of the zipper-challenged President Bill Clinton, Rather concluded by gushing, “Mr. President, if we could be one one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners.” ( )

Barf bag, anyone?

As a former hard-working newspaper reporter and editor, it makes my flesh crawl, to see the antics of these high-profile noozies.

Please do not ever, ever listen to them.

9 comments on “Most Disgusting Performance by a News Toady

  1. Don’t worry, I will never listen to them. I haven’t listened to any of these jerks for a number of years. I can’t even stand the compromising pretenders of the so-called “fair and balanced” set.

    1. A few of my liberal friends have told me that Fox News is alone responsible for the very existence of conservatives and conservative ideas. Apparently Fox News mesmerizes hapless viewers and turns them into conservatives: if left alone, they would naturally all be lefties. This theory fails to explain how people became conservatives before Fox News came along; but I guess libs and progs find it a great comfort.

  2. Oh, yes. They have a ready answer for everything. People who see only two ways to think and to do; “my way and the wrong way.” Don’t worry
    about them, just smile and tell them you were far right of Fox before Fox ever happened.

  3. Lee, You mentioned you were an editor. I was wondering how many editors (even with small newspapers) really understand right from wrong. The last two Napa Valley Register editors deleted paragraphs and sentences they didn’t like in my commentaries (without my permission). We would even discuss what they were going to do to my commentary face to face, and they would still delete things I never agreed to. The most recent editor seems to be ok–hasn’t deleted anything yet–he said it would be like misquoting someone to delete anything without the permission of the writer. Just wondering. He recently did a commentary explaining news versus opinion–why we have news and opinions separated in newspapers. As you already know, news and opinions aren’t really separated. I still thought it was an interesting commentary.

    1. First, we’re talking about way back in the 1970s. “Narrative journalism” hadn’t been invented yet, and lying was still called lying.

      Second, I speak for myself and for the newspaper of which I was managing editor. Our object was always to report the news as accurately and as truthfully as possible. Personally, I always avoided getting too close to public figures in case I might have to write a story that would hurt them. I did not accept invitations to dinners, fishing trips, etc.

      Third, we never published commentaries by persons not on the staff. Sometimes letters to the editor were edited for spelling, grammar, or some other good reasons.

      The practices that you describe had no place at The Bayshore Independent (may she rest in peace). Our publisher/editor-in-chief was in some ways a grossly immoral man, but he would have been ashamed to violate what we all considered journalistic ethics. His employees, his news sources, and ultimately his readers would have despised him for it: so in this one area of his life, he was clean.

      Really, we did bend over backwards to try to keep opinion out of our news coverage. We didn’t want to be like those whores on television.

    2. I believe many editors understand what they are doing, they just don’t much care. Pardon the phrase “much care.” I am afraid they think the treasure those who came before us created is worth less than the shiny lure Lucifer dangles before th e m.

  4. The same goes for Bob Woodward. He uses anonymous sources for his statements, and many of those whom he quotes claims they didn’t say what his book says. Then Woodward says they are lying to stay in good graces with their boss. Gov. Christie says he was never even interviewed, yet he is quoted in the book. Now, Woodard goes on all the liberal shows to suck up to their perverted analysis of President Trump who for the most part is doing the opposite of what they are accusing him of.

    1. He’s definitely not the man he used to be. Oh well, what goes around, comes around.

Leave a Reply