But here's a perspective which tends to confirm that "journalists" are really just another herd.
When Dave ("Who?") Weigel wanted to bash conservatives about Palin, he asked why we were freaking out over Joe McGinnis invading her privacy, because "any journalist" would jump at that chance.
See, that's the problem Dave: No they wouldn't. How do I know this? Because they haven't. Bill Clinton's a big, important figure to write biographies about; how come no one's renting the apartment across the street from his wink-wink "executive offices" in Harlem and peeking at him to see who visits him?
Same with Hillary. There are a lot of interesting subjects who'd sell a lot of biographies -- and for all of them, the lurid promise of exxxtra special access!!! Spy footage!!! would sell even more copies.
So why, Dave, if this is something "all journalists" would jump to do, do they not... actually... do... it?
It's because you're wrong. Not "all journalists" would do this about their subjects. Not because they don't want to sell more books. But because the peer disapproval from their like-minded liberal colleagues discourages them from spying on Hillary Clinton.
And they do it to Palin because none of them care if Palin's privacy is invaded; in fact, they applaud it. Because she is "The Other." She is inhuman -- and you can treat her worse than an animal.In a more local context, we note that Scott Walker is attacked for everything he's done except walk across the street--and we expect that Bice will observe THAT any minute now.
On the other hand, no "journalist" in Milwaukee has ever noted that Tom Barrett's work-ethic approximates zero--except for Charlie Sykes, who FINALLY mentioned it yesterday.
Borsuk, while employed at the local monopoly, was a helluvalot more restrained about MPS issues than he is now, as an indy working at Marquette U. Co-incidence? You be the judge...
"Newspaper"? Not really. Docile, ideology-driven sheep.
Ho hum. What's new?
Post a Comment