Subscribe via RSS Feed

Pompous Hack With No Sense of Shame of the Day

[ 13 ] June 25, 2010 |

Jeffrey Goldberg.   To see a guy who draws a very nice salary despite printing demonstrable falsehoods as propaganda for a war against a country that posed no significant threat to the United States and has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the loss of trillions of dollars criticize the standards of other journalists…I just don’t have the chops to properly express the contempt that Goldberg merits.

As for the Weigel “scandal,” it makes “OMG players today use different tacitly-sanctioned PEDs than the players I grew up with did!” look like Watergate by comparison.   I haven’t seen anybody raise any objections to Weigel’s excellent reporting, and if his reporting is good what he says about people on a private listserv is completely irrelevant (and, conversely, if his reporting was unfair it wouldn’t matter if he kept his thoughts about Drudge to himself.)   Apart from providing the umpteenth example of how Republicans are world-class whiners, there’s nothing there.   To the extent that there’s a scandal here, it’s this:

It was ironic, in a way, that it would be the Daily Caller that published e-mails from Journolist. A few weeks ago, its editor, Tucker Carlson, asked if he could join the list. After asking other members, I said no, that the rules had worked so far to protect people, and the members weren’t comfortable changing them. He tried to change my mind, and I offered, instead, to partner with Carlson to start a bipartisan list serv. That didn’t interest him.

Not so much “ironic” as “why this non-scandal culminated as it did.”  (I can’t imagine why Ezra thought Tucker couldn’t be trusted!)  The more guilty party isn’t so much Carlson as the dishonest creep on the list who did his dirty work, but if you’re looking for any actual unethical behavior there you go.    I just hope Weigel lands on his feet quickly, and if the leaker gets fired for some trivial nonsense irrelevant to his or her actual work that would be a nice bonus.

see also.

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Quicksand says:

    hundreds of thousands of deths

    Not a very catchy band name, I’m afraid. Consider rounding up.

  2. [...] –Lawyers Guns and Money: Not so much “ironic” as “why this non-scandal culminated as it did.” (I can’t imagine why Ezra thought Tucker couldn’t be trusted!) The more guilty party isn’t so much Carlson as the dishonest creep on the list who did his dirty work, but if you’re looking for any actual unethical behavior there you go. I just hope Weigel lands on his feet quickly, and if the leaker gets fired for some trivial nonsense irrelevant to his or her actual work that would be a nice bonus. [...]

  3. El Cid says:

    Goldberg may have told demonstrable lies, but it’s not like they involved important issues.

    What does it matter to a man like Goldberg that hundreds of thousands of Arabs or Muslims die? Heck, it’s not like they’re actual people. If your hawk friends and pro-militarists on Israeli policies wouldn’t mind blowing the shit out of an Arab nation, why should a journalist not lie in that service?

    Now, using rude language about a right wing jackoff liar like Drudge — now, that is going beyond the pale.

  4. Aaron Baker says:

    And do be sure to see Goldberg’s follow-up pity party: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/yes-yes-i-know-i-started-the-iraq-war/58780/

    No, Jeff, you didn’t start the war; you just contributed to the best of your ability to starting it. I get the distinction.

  5. bob mcmanus says:

    Well, I guess you showed ‘em. I suspect Goldberg, Carlson, and anon leaker are blushing with embarrassment and trembling with fear after the 100th blog chastised them sternly.

  6. David M. Nieporent says:

    Most of what Weigel said on the list is irrelevant gossip; his discussion of how and why the Scott Brown election should be spun, on the other hand, was not. It’s hard to defend a journalist saying — even off the record, among friends — that a story ought to be reported a certain way because reporting it a different way is bad for Democrats.

    (Well, it’s irrelevant gossip retrospectively; prospectively, it might make it a little difficult for him to do his job if the people he’s supposed to be covering think that he hates them.)

    • The Wrath of Oliver Khan says:

      it might make it a little difficult for him to do his job if the people he’s supposed to be covering think that he hates them.

      Funny how this is apparently only a problem for journalists on the left, and not for employees of Fox News.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site