3am and I Must Be Drunk Again
I actually don't know when any sense of journalistic shame is going to boot in with Andrea Mitchell. In that location seems to be no limit to what she volition say or exercise when the cameras are rolling, and the fact that the right is as angry equally the left nearly her continued journalistic malfeasance in the CIA leak case ways it has gotten pretty friggin' bad. And it does not autumn into the category of "well anybody is upset so she must be doing something right." Wrong. She'southward a big, fat festering eddy on the posterior of NBC that somebody needs to lance.
Despite the fact that the Libby defense team spent copious amounts of time trying to drag Mitchell into court to bear witness nearly her October 2003 statement to Alan Murray of CNBC to the issue that "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to rails downward who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger," she still continues to report on the case. And even though her reporting continues to be factually challenged, false and downright misleading, she just Will Non Shut Up.
For a withering analysis of Mrs. Alan Greenspin's history of ethical lapses in this instance, delight read David Fiderer's Nov 2005 slice in the Huffington Mail service. It'southward devastating. Merely nothing could compare to the explanations she herself has given on Imus regarding the CNBC quote, which included this:
"I must have been drunk."
Mannerly. Any other reporter making such a litany of excuses, who wasn't then intimately tied into the beltway elite, would've been shitcanned on the spot.
An overlooked piece of the Mitchell puzzle was revealed in Guess Reggie Walton's memorandum issued on March ii of this year (PDF). The Libby defence team sought to introduce Mitchell'southward CNBC statement in a convoluted Rube Goldberg maneuver to impeach the testimony of Tim Russert, merely Walton reveals that even Mitchell and NBC admit that it was just so much bullshit:
[T]hither was no corroborative evidence to support the reliability of Mitchell's October 2003 statement. Indeed, Mitchell and NBC repeatedly repudiated the substitution as false and misleading. (emphasis mine).
"False and misleading?" The reporter NBC has had on the instance for years was not but in it up to her eyeballs, she has publicly admitted to making "false and misleading" statements. Was she lying when she told Alan Murray she had known for a while well-nigh Wilson's identity, but to puff herself up and brand her seem more important than she really was? Or was she lying later, trying to hide her own involvement in the case, then every bit to assistance out poor little warmongering, torture lovin' Scooter? Maybe we should just believe her when she says she was reporting while drunkard. Makes as much sense as anything else.
Now allow's hear Mitchell accept total responsibility for the "false and misleading" CNBC statement, again on Imus:
This is one of those things. We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs who are going to grab this one thing and not everything else I have written and said about this and go to boondocks with information technology. It supports their political indicate of view, and…bingo.
Ted Wells, blogger? Ho-kay. Ah the odor of personal responsibility in the morning.
Mitchell'southward agenda when reporting about this instance has always been clear. The twenty-four hours the indictment confronting Libby was handed down, Mitchell went on MSNBC and said that she had seen the report done by the CIA which concluded there was no damage done by the leak of Plame's identity. This despite the fact that the Washington Mail reported shortly thereafter that the CIA claims no such report had been completed. One would take to assume that Mitchell's fact-complimentary reporting was quite helpful to an administration spinning every bit fast as they could on that particular day.
And yesterday, the real icing on the cake came when Mitchell rolled onto MSNBC one time over again and reported that polling indicated that the American public wanted diminutive war pimping neocon Scooter Libby pardoned. Except naught could be further from the truth (As Atrios noted, a CNN poll puts that figure at 18%). However, this particular statement was no uncertainty also helpful to an administration brimful with embarrassment and rocked by scandal, which probably does non want a soulless architect of war like Scooter Libby out there running his oral cavity right now.
I know Andrea Mitchell is connected in ways to the DC elite and the White House that make her difficult to dismiss. But thanks to Tim Russert's admission that he spilled his guts to the FBI when first contacted and then later tried to merits First Subpoena privilege to protect his sources from exposure to the people he'd already exposed them to, as well as Mitchell'south virtual dirty laundry bag of journalistic sins in this case, the network's brownie is on the line (MSNBC should exist thanking their lucky stars for whatever particular alignment of the heavens brought them David Shuster). Information technology is absolutely shocking that they permit Mitchell on television to say whatsoever helpfully misleading thing the administration wants her to blather on that particular day, without do good of fact checking, reporting or annihilation else that might qualify every bit actual journalism. C'mon, Dan Abrams. You're meliorate than that. I mean, WTF?
NBC, I'm begging you lot. You need to clean the place upwards. Fourth dimension to send Mitchell dwelling house with a canteen of bourbon to nurse her highballs in private, away from the glare of the cameras.
Delight be embarrassed for her, even if she doesn't take the bones common sense to be embarrassed for herself.
Source: https://shadowproof.com/2007/03/13/andrea-mitchell-drunk-again/
0 Response to "3am and I Must Be Drunk Again"
Post a Comment