Mika praises Charlie's tool!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2017

But here's what the Post report says:
The Washington Post's report about Charlie Rose is a report for the ages.

We'll be perfectly honest. As of perhaps six months ago, we didn't know that anyone ever behaved like this. As it turns out, it now seems that everyone does!

We regard this morning's report as stunning. For today, we'll only mention what Mika Brzezinski has said.

This morning, Mika was ripping and snorting about the report in ways which were largely incoherent, as tends to be her practice. Eventually, though, at 6:29 AM Eastern, she said this:

"Yvette Vega, at CBS, thank you for your apology. You should be promoted for your honesty. You should not be fired."

You can see Mika's fuller remarks on this videotape.

As far as we know, Vega doesn't work at CBS, but that's beside the point. Our point concerns Vega's reported role in this appalling mess.

Mika thinks Vega deserves a promotion. She seems to think that Vega issues an honest apology in today's report.

We're not real big on punishment here; we also won't assess Vega's honesty. But based on that lengthy Post report, Vega played a leading role in Rose's years of craziness and exploitation.

If it were anyone but Mika, it would be stunning to see someone go on TV and praise Vega for her conduct. Our advice would be this:

Search on Vega's name as you read that Post report. Review the five separate places where her 16-year role in this lunacy is described. It seems to us that you're reading about Rose's top enabler/procurer/helpmate.

Below, you see the final passage in which Vega's role is described. We'll highlight the reference to Vegaat the end of this lunatic passage:
CARMON AND BRITTAIN (11/21/17): Kyle Godfrey-Ryan was in her early 20s and had taken time off from her college studies in the mid-2000s when a friend offered to introduce her to Charlie Rose. She was unfamiliar with his show but was soon hired to be his assistant.

From the beginning, there was a blurring of the boundaries between Rose's professional and private life, she said. On her first day on the job, Rose injured his foot. She tended to him as he recovered.

But soon, Godfrey-Ryan said, he began yelling at her, calling her stupid and incompetent and pathetic.

"He repeatedly attacked her in front of other people," recalled a former producer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He once said that because she hadn't gotten a college degree she would never amount to anything better than his secretary."

After the bouts of rage, Godfrey-Ryan said, Rose would often be conciliatory.

"It would usually entail some version of him also touching me," she said. "A hand on the upper thigh. He'd give a hug but touch the side of the breast."

She said she ignored his actions. Then he began calling her as late as midnight and as early as 6 a.m.

"It would be wanting to know details of my sex life," she said. " 'Who's next to you? What do you do? Is he touching you?' And I was like, 'Okay, Charlie, I'll see you tomorrow.' I just acted like it wasn't happening."

She said other calls involved a "very specific, repetitive fantasy" of her disrobing at the Bellport home and swimming "back and forth in the pool in the moonlight" as he watched from his bedroom.

Her boyfriend at the time, now her husband, told The Post that he was often present for these calls but said he did not know what was being discussed. The content of the calls, however, was openly discussed in the office and even joked about, according to Godfrey-Ryan and the producer who worked there at the time.

Godfrey-Ryan also said Rose would repeatedly walk in front of her naked at one of his New York City residences. Her husband confirmed that she complained to him about it at the time.

She said she ignored the nudity. "He was getting more and more frustrated that I wouldn't engage," she said.

Godfrey-Ryan said she reported the touching and the calls to Vega, but nothing happened.

"She just made me feel like I was being a dramatic little girl," Godfrey-Ryan said.
She stopped reporting the behavior.
Who knows? It's possible that Godfrey-Ryan's assessment of Vega may be unfair in some way. But Vega's role in this madness is described that way throughout.

Her apology comes near the beginning of the report, which may explain why Mika read it. But it's all downhill from there.

Watching Mika this morning, you might have thought that Vega was the heroic whistle-blower here. In fact, Vega was outed by the Post report, like Rose, her long-time employer.

Vega does state an apology, but then again, so does Rose.

Mika seems to say that Vega is being honest because she's a woman. At one point, she seems to suggest that no one like Vega turned up in the reports about Harvey Weinstein.

In fact, Weinstein seemed to have a lot of female employees who served as his enablers and procurers, as seems to have been Vega's role. We'll take a wild guess:

Mika never quite got around to reading those reports about Weinstein. We wouldn't assume that she read today's report all the way to the end.

Only in the upper-end American "press corps" could someone actually go on TV and say that Vega deserves a promotion based on today's report! Needless to say, no one questioned what Mika said. Mika and Joe are in charge!

Rose's conduct seems to have been deranged, but so is our collection of pundits, with Mika perhaps the weirdest of all. This has been true for many years, producing death all over the world.

So far, no whistle has been blown about that. Dearest darlings, use your heads! As with Vega, so too here:

It simply isn't done!

19 comments:

  1. "We'll be perfectly honest. As of perhaps six months ago, we didn't know that anyone ever behaved like this. As it turns out, it now seems that everyone does!"

    Honestly?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charlie Rose should've denied the allegations, like Trump and Moore did.

    Then Bob could lecture the press about rushing to judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was a Charlie Rose fan back in the infancy of my awareness about media malfeasance. I looked to his show on PBS as informative. Watching his show, I felt I knew more than most people about the issues.

    Media Whores Online started my journey of skepticism of the media, and that now-defunct site linked to TDH. Haven’t looked back since.

    These quotes, from the WahoPost (stole that from Bartcop, whom I also discovered on MWO), reinforce everything we know about celebrity media, thanks to the work of Bob and people like him:

    “When Time magazine named Rose one of its 100 most influential people in 2014, billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg described him as ‘one of the most important and influential people in journalism.’”

    If Bloomberg said it, it must be true. After all, he was and is a billionaire. To put a point on that, another quote from the article:

    “The “Charlie Rose” show (sic) prides itself on its highbrow intellectual ambition, but his life is glamorous, full of black-tie galas and famous friends.”

    Exactly what Bob has bemoaned forever. Rose is a high-level media whore, and his ambition, whilst occasionally enlightening, is to be rich and well-known. Boy, people are gonna know him now.

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let us know when Somerby finally succeeds in getting Matthews and Maddow fired. Or anyone at all.

      Delete
    2. Leroy,

      Pack up your stuff and get out. You're fired!

      Delete
  4. "We'll be perfectly honest. As of perhaps six months ago, we didn't know that anyone ever behaved like this."

    Apparently, ignorance IS bliss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is satire. Bob is referring to the paucity of exposés (in the last half century or so), compared to the recent tsunami.
      #MeToo, perhaps? Or Trumpomania?

      Delete
    2. If it is satire, what is being satirized?

      I feel like Somerby is complaining about the exposes, not the lack of them.

      Either way, I don't think he cares about women much. Whatever their faults, both Mika and Vega have no doubt been the recipient of their own harassment, because every woman encounters this crap, more often than you would think.

      Somerby has no right to criticize how any given woman handles it. He has no standing in this fight, other than to make sure he, himself, has not been dishing it out to anyone.

      Given the way he selectively attacks women at this blog, I doubt his conscience is clear. I believe he is just as big an a**hole as many of the other men in standup. He clearly is not an ally.

      Delete
    3. @gravymeister: So when Somerby says "we'll be perfectly honest", he's actually being satirical? What gave it away--the use of the word "honest?"

      Was this also satirical:
      "This has been true for many years, producing death all over the world. "

      Is this whole blog a satire, a comedy shtick?

      Delete
  5. There is a chasm between an enabler and the perpetrator of sexual harassment. Vega was a coward who protected her own career but it was Rose who assaulted women.

    Somerby was supposedly unaware such things happened but instead of writing about Rose, he thinks Mika needs to be taken down a peg because of how she talked about Vega. I disagree with Mika's opinion but Somerby seems majorly confused about who the wrong doer is in this situation. Hint: It isn't Mika or Vega.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haven't heard much from Bernie about this topic.

      Delete
  6. I don't think Somerby likes women much. If he did, he would have used his famous empathy to understand more about the obstacles women face in their daily lives. You had to work hard to avoid consciousness raising at Harvard! Did he not even read Gone Girl?

    No, wait, he thinks women make this stuff up. Why? To get attention? To have a reason to cry? To make men victims? Does Somerby have a nym he uses in the men's rights groups?

    ReplyDelete

  7. Some times, i don't code programs. I know that's a typical of someone perceived as a hacker, but my techniques have always been a typical. For instance, it might surprise readers to know that all of the widely publicized hacks I was involved in - let's call that the "Adrian Classic" period :p - were done using a web browser and Notepad, on dialup, on Windows 98.  

    If you stop to think about it, this is really a true meta-hack. People who ask to learn how to hack are generally told to install Linux, learn how to code, and experiment with various hacking tools. Much how network administrators learning to secure their systems tend to get the same certifications, read many of the same books. This results in activity that's really more like jousting than hacking - a predefined pattern of attack taking place against a predefined pattern of defense. 
    When i started Hacking, I learnt how to code, I learned to read code, and I learned how programmers thought, which assumptions they tended to make, and what mistakes their common training tended to cause them to make in common across completely different systems. One example of this is writing access code with the assumption that if failure = no then access = yes. On many systems, I found that by simply removing a username or password field, access would be automatically granted - because there had been no username or password failure, since there had been none to fail, so access was granted. 

    Because my methods were and are unorthodox, they are rarely detected by intrusion detection systems. They don't resemble common attacks because they aren't common attacks. I often make them up on the spot. Which is why the question "teach me to hack" is so frustrating. This is particularly emphasized by a meme pic I got a Google Alert for this morning: I always give readers free Access to reach me for all kinds of Hacking Issues though : compositehacks@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete

  8. Some times, i don't code programs. I know that's a typical of someone perceived as a hacker, but my techniques have always been a typical. For instance, it might surprise readers to know that all of the widely publicized hacks I was involved in - let's call that the "Adrian Classic" period :p - were done using a web browser and Notepad, on dialup, on Windows 98.  

    If you stop to think about it, this is really a true meta-hack. People who ask to learn how to hack are generally told to install Linux, learn how to code, and experiment with various hacking tools. Much how network administrators learning to secure their systems tend to get the same certifications, read many of the same books. This results in activity that's really more like jousting than hacking - a predefined pattern of attack taking place against a predefined pattern of defense. 
    When i started Hacking, I learnt how to code, I learned to read code, and I learned how programmers thought, which assumptions they tended to make, and what mistakes their common training tended to cause them to make in common across completely different systems. One example of this is writing access code with the assumption that if failure = no then access = yes. On many systems, I found that by simply removing a username or password field, access would be automatically granted - because there had been no username or password failure, since there had been none to fail, so access was granted. 

    Because my methods were and are unorthodox, they are rarely detected by intrusion detection systems. They don't resemble common attacks because they aren't common attacks. I often make them up on the spot. Which is why the question "teach me to hack" is so frustrating. This is particularly emphasized by a meme pic I got a Google Alert for this morning: I always give readers free Access to reach me for all kinds of Hacking Issues though : compositehacks@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Mika praises Charlie's tool!"

    I find this juvenile double entendre offensive in the context of sexual harassment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Offensive? Somerby?? It's his stock-in-trade. Part of his interminable comedy act.

      Delete