Now coming, the year of the jackal: This morning, on their hard-copy front page, the slow sad souls of the New York Times were very much in their element.
The Times enjoys feigning interest/involvement in journalistic ethics. That said, at the end of the day, when the feigning is done, they really love discussing the behavior and exciting affairs of movie stars.
Best of all? The exciting behavior and affairs of glamorous female stars of Mexican soap operas! At the end of the day, that's where these sad slow upper-class posers live!
This morning, the sad slow posers at the Times got to scratch all their itches. On the paper's hard-copy front page, a pair of exciting, steamy reports ran under one banner headline:
"The Interview: The Actress and the Ethics"
Dearest darlings, it was delish! They could feign concern about journalistic ethics while pimping major column inches about Kate del Castillo's "portrayal of a merciless drug trafficker in the 2011 hit soap opera 'La Reina del Sur,' or 'The Queen of the South,'"
Also, about the way del Castillo "advertised her new tequila," which was cited in paragraph one of a front-page news report! As the report continued, the Times' Elisabeth Malkin excitedly described the "philosophy" of the tempestuous soap opera star who's also queen of the south:
MALKIN (1/11/16): In 2012, still flush from success in her role on “La Reina del Sur” as the drug lord Teresa Mendoza, Ms. del Castillo posted a letter on her Twitter account, a declaration of her philosophy, tastes and beliefs.She even traffics in "rather strong language!" Dearest darlings, nothing has ever been quite so delish!
In the middle of her musing, Ms. del Castillo suddenly referred to Mr. Guzmán by his nickname, “El Chapo,” or “Shorty”: “Today I believe more in Chapo Guzmán than in the governments that hide the truth although it may be painful, who hide the cure for cancers, AIDS, etc, for their own benefit and wealth.”
Then she addressed Mr. Guzmán in capital letters. “Mr. Chapo, wouldn’t it be cool if you began to traffic in what is good,” she wrote, continuing, “In cures for diseases, in food for street children, in alcohol for the elderly in old peoples’ homes that don’t let them spend their last years doing whatever” they feel like. Her language, in places, was rather stronger.
Malkin didn't think to explain why the queen of the south would, as part of her philosophy, taste and beliefs, claim that governments are hiding the cure for cancers (plural) and AIDS. Presumably, it's all part of her tempestuous language, which can be rather strong!
Meanwhile, with what sorts of ethical issues was the Times wrestling today? In the second of the two front-page reports, Ravi Somaiya explained:
SOMAIYA (1/11/16): [A]fter its publication, questions have been raised about the ethics for the magazine in dealing with Mr. Guzmán, a criminal being sought on charges of drug trafficking and murder, and in allowing him to approve what would ultimately be published about him. The Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, speaking Sunday on “This Week,” on ABC News, acknowledged Mr. Penn’s “constitutional right” to meet with Mr. Guzmán, but called the interview “grotesque.”According to Rolling Stone, Penn has a distinctive writing style concerning flatulence issues. Meanwhile, should the magazine have agreed to give "prior review" of Penn's long piece to El Chapo?
Steve Coll, the dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, said he was concerned by the editorial approval offered to Mr. Guzmán. But ultimately, he said, “scoring an exclusive interview with a wanted criminal is legitimate journalism no matter who the reporter is.”
The article was edited by Mr. Wenner and Mr. Fine, with Mr. Fine responsible for the final line editing before publication. Responding to criticisms of the piece’s distinctive writing style, which was mocked on social media, and its discursions into topics including flatulence and technology, Mr. Fine said: “It’s a piece by Sean Penn. Sean Penn has a particular style and point of view, and I’m happy with it.”
Mr. Penn has not commented publicly since the article was published.
Mr. Fine said that he, too, had considered the ethics involved with the article’s publication and the magazine’s arrangement with its subject. If Mr. Guzmán wanted changes, he said, the magazine had the option of not publishing the piece.
The Times pretended to be concerned about this weighty issue. Our view? After its occasional minor problems last year, Rolling Stone should probably seek prior review of its articles from as many people as possible, not excluding drug lords with flatulence problems who recently broke out of prison.
Should any sane person credit the New York Times' stance, in which it poses as a watchdog of journalistic ethics which spilling endless barrels of ink on the doings of two—count em, two!—offbeat movie stars?
We'd have to say no, especially after the Times editorial which had Joe and Mika yelping today like a couple of overpaid kids who got into del Castillo's new tequila, mixed with some of El Chapo's best product and a chaser of Charo's legacy rum.
The editorial appeared last Friday. For us, the first passage which seemed striking was this:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (1/11/16): For decades Mrs. Clinton has helped protect her husband’s political career, and hers, from the taint of his sexual misbehavior, as evidenced by the Clinton team’s attacks on the character of women linked to Mr. Clinton. When Mr. Clinton ran for president in 1992, Mrs. Clinton appeared on television beside him to assert that allegations involving Gennifer Flowers were false. In 1998, he admitted to that affair under oath.Warning! The overall logic of the piece is virtually impossible to follow. Then again, did we say that the editorial in question appeared in the New York Times?
Why did the passage we've cited seem striking to us? Because of the claim that Bill Clinton "admitted to [an] affair" with Gennifer Flowers, "under oath" no less.
Did Bill Clinton really do that? We'll discuss that matter (again) tomorrow. But as of 6:30 this morning, that New York Times editorial had Joe and Mika reelin' and rockin'.
In this righteous videotape, you'll see Joe excitedly making his various charges, with Mika engaged in her trademark Me Too-ism, a philosophy also widely known as What Joe Just Said. You'll also see Harold Ford not knowing how to respond.
That said, Joe and Mika were very worked up. We suspect the guild-wide excitement may just be getting started.
Warning! Candidate Trump has shown the children how they can present this material this time around. When they aren't discussing the new tequilas of tempestuous Mexican stars, we suspect that the children of our celebrity press corps will be extremely eager to run with their new line of piddle.
The liberal world will sit and watch, just as it has always done. Truth to tell, there have never been life forms as hapless and helpless as we the liberals are.
Tomorrow: Concerning the "admission" of that "affair"
A product of the Soviet hive mind.ReplyDelete
It's hilarious to watch the media go after Penn because of how jealous and pissed-off they are that he scooped them all on a big story.ReplyDelete
That's what it comes down to -- these oh-so-pious ones -- and so their hand-wringing over "his ethics" is a hoot.
Penn also likely knows which corporations are involved in the drug trade, which is why I think the NYT sent out the bat signal that they should calm down.Delete
The liberals who are sitting and watching: Maddow and Hayes of course, Digby, Kevin Drum, Balloon Juice, TPM, Thom Hartmann, Think Progress, Daily Kos, Eschaton, Corrente, and all the others. They don't call out anyone when there are these attacks on Hillary Clinton and Democratic prospects. They stand by because Bernie is not the target. They let the NY Times and the conservatives do their dirty work for them. We apparently have no mainstream liberals capable of expressing outrage. Why is that?ReplyDelete
Hillary thinks it is better to take the high road. Sometimes I hate that about her, but if she strays from that path she is doomed because they will portray her as a harridan and conjure up everyone's image of a bitter ex-wife and she will have trouble winning. So she needs her surrogates and she needs the rest of the party, including those Bernie and Obama supporters to step up -- the sooner the better.
"They stand by because Bernie is not the target."Delete
Yes, I think you pretty much nailed it on the head. I am beyond the point of being angry anymore.
Biden just stuck a shiv in Hillary's back, this is sure to get everyone all excited. Bah!
The question is begged: would Bob have any time for Joe and Mika if they were on Fox?ReplyDelete