I am angry.

I have begin to think that Howard Kurtz is the spirit of Walter Duranty.

“I don’t think the party favoritism charge holds up. Yes, the media went hard after two Republican senators, Larry Craig (who pleaded guilty in that bathroom incident) and David Vitter (who admitted calling an escort service). But they also pounced on New York’s Democratic then-governor, Eliot Spitzer (whose taste in prostitutes was revealed by the New York Times), and, famously, Bill Clinton (whose Monica Lewinsky mess was disclosed by The Post and hotly pursued by Newsweek).”

I gotta tell ya, Howard…. I’d like to be kind and charge you with gross incompetence, but there’s no way… no WAYthat someone as informed on such things as you claim to be could NOT know that your buddy,  Mike Isikoff sat on the Lewinsky thing… pretty much the way the Edwards thing was handled… until Drudge got into the act.   This was pointed out at the time and since.  The Spitzer thing had been rumored up here in NY for quite some time. As was the Edwards case.. that whole thing was hardly unknown, Howard, merely untapped by the MSM.  Where was the vaunted investigative ability of the NYT back then, particularly in light of the Troopergate scandals which the Times also fairly well ignored??  The MSM knew about this stuff Howard. They just didn’t bother dropping what they knew.

Since there is no way you could NOT have known this the Lewinsky story was spiked particularly after the thing has been torn apart for years and examined now, I classify your comments as bordering on the criminal in terms of your breech of the public trust.  Of COURSE it helps when there’s a law enforcement inquiry so the journalists don’t need to do the heavy lifting.  But apparently, you’ve forgotten that absent such public investigations, part of  the press’ job is to make up for that lack, particularly where malfeasance is concerned.. as in the Lewinsky matter.   You’re not in the role for how easy it is; you’re there to do a job.  That you don’t understand that, gives better explanation than you did in your piece why the Dinosaur media is superfluous. … yourself included.

Your claim of “The fact that big newspapers, magazines and networks have standards — that is, they refuse to print every stray rumor just because it’s “out there”” in light of “October Surprise” and the formal backless piece on John McCain (Formal backless = All rumor, no backing evidence whatever -Bit) recently in the New York Times, suggests those standards get selectively applied.  Had you forgotten them? Or is it that the mere mention of them derails the case you’re trying to make that the Dinosaur media isn’t biased?

I suggest you, sir,  have become naught more than an apologist for the Democrats, no better than the morons you rightly deride in your piece…  and that therefore you are therefore worse than useless. You’re an actual impediment to a free American society. When the gossipers of the world… the Drudge crowd and the Enquirerhave to take up the investigative line because the MSM won’t touch it, that’s bad enough. But for you to slither out and play this line defending them not doing their job is so far beyond the pale, it invokes the spirit of Duranty himself.

And.. Howie… Buddy…. trust me… that is no compliment.

Addendum: (Bit) I actually wrote this this afternoon. Now that I’m home and got to posting it,  I see after the fact Billy’s posted a few choice words as well.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “You’re Superfluous Too, Howard.”


  1. Nightly Ramble: Polls; Advisers; Silence, Dissent!; more | BitsBlog