I guess most people no longer even notice this kind of thing, but it drives me crazy, and will continue to until I am, in fact, crazy.
There is no doubt: Donna Brazile is an ethics corrupter. With the complicity of mainstream media elite and her cocktail party pals, she has for years been falsely represented to audiences on various public affairs shows and “round tables” as an honest and trustworthy political analyst, when in fact she is a paid operative of the Democratic Party. This has been true since she was the campaign manager for Al Gore’s failed Presidential bid. It is deception every time she is introduced on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” as anything else but a paid agent of the Democratic party. Since her opinion isn’t merely biased but paid for, presenting her as an authority or a pundit is misrepresentation, and intentionally so.
During the last campaign, Brazile revealed her character by using a position with CNN (that never should have been offered, given her known loyalties) to help Hillary Clinton cheat in a town hall and a debate against Bernie Sanders. She cheated. Her cheating was revealed in the e-mails hacked on John Podesta’s e-mail account, but Brazile lied about it when confronted with the evidence, implying that the e-mails were fabricated. Later, after that deception flopped spectacularly, she said that she was “proud” of cheating for Clinton, and regretted nothing.
To sum up, we know, and the media knows, that Donna Brazile is a corrupt partisan, who is eager to misrepresent herself and reality, and cheat when necessary to win for her clients. She should never be presented as an independent, objective, honest or trustworthy commentator or authority. Never. Her presence stands for the unethical propositions that the ends justify the means, and that the Left must prevail even if doing so requires cheating and lies.
Ah, but Donna is one of the gang in Washington, good people, don’t you know, so her journalist pals and the news media are working hard to make Donna acceptable again. Thus I see this headline at “The Hill”:
Brazile: Sending Clinton town hall topics ‘mistake I will forever regret’
Drudge takes the hand-off, and links to the story like this..
DONNA SEEKS REDEMPTION: REGRETS LEAKED QUESTION…
ABC, next to CNN the network that has most shamelessly passed off Brazile as trustworthy commentator, headlined the story,
Donna Brazile: Passing debate questions to Clinton camp ‘a mistake I will forever regret’
FACT: Donna Brazile has never said, implied or stated that she regrets cheating on Clinton’s behalf. Never. Yet these are the headlines of stories that desperately attempted to convince the public that the opposite is the case.
What’s going on? TIME gave Brazile space to author a blatant piece of anti-Trump propaganda titled, “Donna Brazile: Russian DNC Narrative Played Out Exactly As They Hoped.” Give TIMR some credit: at least it bills Brazile as a “Democratic Party strategist,” though because its readers are dense as bricks, TIME should add, “so you know this essay furthers Democratic Party strategy.” The headline tells us as much: it was all a “narrative” that the DNC and Brazile were willing to cheat to win the Presidency. The article itself takes the position that the Russians intended to give Trump the Presidency, and did. ” [T] he F.B.I. and our intelligence community determined that Russia interfered in the United States election with the aim of electing Donald Trump President.” she writes. Except this is false: the intelligence community has presented no evidence at all that Russia’s hacks were aimed at electing Trump. Nor has any evidence been offered to show that the leaks of Podesta’s e-mails, including those sent by Brazile, had any effect on the election result. (The link, which one would expect to support Brazile’s characterization, goes to another TIME story about polls.) That is a supposition only. Brazile’s spin gets worse from there, but the piece is to advance the Democratic narrative that Trump didn’t win the election legitimately.
Late in the article, she regrets that her e-mails were among those hacked (and that thus, by this “It wasn’t Hillary’s fault and Trump is an illegitimate President” excuse, contributed to the Democrat defeat), and says,
My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.By stealing all the DNC’s emails and then selectively releasing those few, the Russians made it look like I was in the tank for Secretary Clinton.
Brazile regrets sending the e-mails because they were hacked, and “made it look like I was in the tank for Secretary Clinton,” which, of course, she was. It also made her looks like she abused CNN’s trust (which she did, though CNN was also in the tank for Hillary), and lied (which she also did.) In fact, those e-mails exposed Donna Brazile for the Machiaveliian, unethical hack that she is, and by extension exposes any party whose leadership is made up of such people. Naturally she regrets sending those e-mails, because they were hacked by the Russians—that’s the entire context of the essay in which that statement appears.The statement in the essay being falsely reported as “regret” for her dishonesty is merely a different way of saying she said right before the election:
“My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear…if I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.”
She never said she was sorry for the cheating, and doesn’t in TIME. She never says she even regrets cheating. She only says that she regrets sending the e-mails, not because she was cheating by sending them, but because they became public (because she didn’t know enough about cybersecurity), and might have helped elect Trump.
She writes nary word about regretting “sending Clinton town hall topics,” “passing debate questions to the Clinton camp” or “leaking the town hall question.” How many readers of the articles with those headlines will read the TIME piece and realize that those headlines are just not true? I assume not many, and I assume that those publications assume not many, since the essay makes it painfully obvious that “redemption” is the furthest thing from Brazile’s mind.
Or could it be that these publications are really so biased and incompetent that they think their headlines are accurate? That may be the scariest possibility of all.
One final note: in another thread on the blog, the argument is being vigorously made that the outright media distortions and misrepresentations Ethics Alarms calls (and will continue to call) “fake news” are more accurately described as propaganda. This episode is a perfect illustration of the distinction. Brazile’s TIME article, continuing the Democratic mission of convincing the public, completely without evidence, that the Trump campaign was involved in the Russian mischief with the DNC e-mails, is classic propaganda. Announcing that Brazile regrets cheating for Clinton is fake news. The objective isn’t any political spin. The objective is to make good old Donna, corrupt as she is, respectable, believable, and employable again.