Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, explaining recently why he had given all of the Jan. 6th footage to Tucker Carlson, and not to the world in general, asked the circle of reports around him, "haven't you ever had an exclusive?" Now, he is saying, Carlson gets an exclusive. That's how the cookie crumbles.
Personally, yes. As a member of the fourth estate, I have had exclusives. They work this way. A source tells me, "right now this information is yours alone to do with as you can -- but as of noon tomorrow, it goes up on businesswire."
In my corner of the journalistic world, putting a release on businesswire (or prnewswire) is, in effect, telling the world.
Real scoops, in other words, are designed to be self-terminating. Either McCarthy or Carlson could give the world all of this footage -- not through businesswire, but by putting a link to it up on their respective websites.
That hasn't happened yet. The world is reliant on Carlson's monopoly. He puts out his own brief edited clips. And he is enjoying his monopoly way too much. Noon after noon goes by and the next step -- the giving-it-to-the-world step, does not happen.
Surely it will happen as soon as either of those two men wakes up to the demands of decency and honor.
[Any who thinks that last line was written without a smirk on my face doesn't know me at all.]
In the "Nineteen Eighty-Four" world of "War is Peace" in which Republicans live, McCarthy said that his goal in releasing the tapes only to Carlson is "transparency": "Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he does not regret sharing footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson despite receiving bipartisan blowback, arguing that the decision was made for transparency." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3888978-mccarthy-says-he-doesnt-regret-sharing-jan-6-footage-with-tucker-carlson/
ReplyDeleteThe most germane of three slogans of The Party would be that associated with the Ministry of Truth. "Ignorance is Strength." The ignorance of the ruled is the strength of the rulers. Carlson is keeping is ignorant for our own good. That "journalism is the enforcement of ignorance" is implied.
DeletePolitical expediency. What I or anyone else thinks about it is of no concern to the players. Their agenda is pretty rigid and predictable. Play the long game, sew dissention among an already jaded electorate and don't make foolish mistakes.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to evening coverage of developing events, I had to evaluate something heard regarding a figure who has been in the news, ad nauseum. There has been an objection, offered on his behalf, that strikes me the same as his other assertions. The objection alleges wrongful accusation, regarding aspects of his behavior(s), and /or, alleged acts or omissions. So---wait: it is wrong to accuse him? I don't think so. Accusation is a pillar of our justice system. Were it not,
ReplyDeletethere could not be due process of law. Wrongful conviction, when it happens, is a problem. Someone alleging wrongful accusation has no standing, because, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, no one is above the law. Or, is that now empty rhetoric?
A wrongful accusation could constitute defamation, which is a false statement about a person that injures his or her reputation. Written defamation is called libel; oral defamation is called slander. The victim can sue the defamer for monetary damages, but defamation is generally not a crime.
DeletePoints well taken. Judges have a fair amount of discretion when considering the credibility of witnesses, complainants and defendants who appear in their venues. Character and demeanor tell them a lot about who they are dealing with. Outside a courtroom, judges are the same as private citizens: all of us are part of the "court of public opinion". I do not advocate a different standard of proof, simply because someone accused of something exhibits a less-than-stellar record of behaviour. No, things are not always as they appear. That is one reason why we have courts and judges.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of courts, just how does the ICC plan to arrest Putin? Seems like creative censorship from where I sit. Symbolic, and little more. Wonder if Putin is worried?
ReplyDeleteSo, it has led us up to this. We are so pregnant with pause, we can scarcely stand it. Playing into the narcissism of the subject is the object of his interest, preference and motive. I would PREFER he not be patronized. No arrest. No attention. No anything. It may not play that way. However, anyone who has followed the strategy of this subject ought to know his MO by now.. Everything done plays into his artful dodger personna. I have a different proposal. Deport him. Declare him a public nuisance; threat to national security; advocate of sedition. Other undesirable people have been dealt with, for, arguably less damning reasonings. Or, allegations.
ReplyDeleteOr, insinuations. Come on now. What is the law? Damned good question.
They got rid of Napoleon, right?
Europe eventually did get rid of Napoleon, with the combined work of the British Navy, the Russian winter, Iberian guerilla warfare, Metternichian diplomacy, and Talleyrandian duplicity. It took a lot. And some Prussians who arrived at Waterloo in the nick of time. But I like the image. Mar-a-Lago is Elba. The 100 days ending with Waterloo are still ahead of us....
DeleteThanks, Christopher. This is not for you only. It is for everyone wondering how the opera plays out. Today, I parsed things as best I can. No one wants another black eye from history. Well, not free world nations, anyway. I reassert we are expending too much money/time/distress on disposing of an annoyance. He may be a little nervous now, but he is still laughing. There was a maxim in administrative law, something called a totality of circumstances. This recognizes that, yes, some cases are egregious and, facially,worthy of pursuit, but what will the outcome obtain, against the expenditure of time/money? We are not batting well right now. You got my comparison with Napoleon. There is nothing that can be done with the subject now that would measurably improve or embellish American history. The narcissist knows this. That is why he is laughing.
ReplyDelete