How To Rehabilitate An Ethics Corrupter

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.

25 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Character, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media

25 responses to “How To Rehabilitate An Ethics Corrupter

  1. Glenn Logan

    So she essentially regrets getting caught — but for sending the emails, her duplicity would never have been revealed. If she had scrawled a handwritten note with the same information and delivered it to the Clinton machine, her troubles would never have happened.

    Nice apology, babe.

    Every time I see an ad for Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos, I throw up a little in my mouth — not because Stephanopoulos is a bad guy, but because he’s a blatant Democrat partisan who was hired because he was a pretty face on the Clinton campaign. Since then, no matter how well NBC thinks he does his job or how many people watch him, he has demonstrated nothing has changed in terms of his bias or ability to fairly report the news.

    This is all of a piece — Democrat party aperatchiks get hired by major media outlets as legitimate news reporters or presented as fair-minded members of the commentariat. Republicans go to their own talk radio programs aired at 3AM or are invited to shouting matches on cable news shows. Balance is maintained.

    Right.

    As tiring as it gets, exposition of the media’s transparent cheerleading for the Democrats must be consistently exposed. They are hoping, in Brazile’s case and others, to rehabilitate them by wordsmithing headlines because they know that’s what most low-information consumers actually consume. Most people wouldn’t bother to read her words, which is essentially a regret she got caught, and even that is as insincere as it’s possible to be.

    No doubt CNN will eventually hire her back. None. They are just waiting for the email thing to be crammed down the memory hole — and it will be, at least for them.

    • valkygrrl

      No doubt CNN will eventually hire her back. None. They are just waiting for the email thing to be crammed down the memory hole — and it will be, at least for them.

      CNN doesn’t need her, they have a stable of rabid partisans for both sides on retainer to come on and fight every night, she used to be one, now they have others. One operative with a set of talking points is just as good as another since they don’t actually debate. They learned nothing from crossfire.

      Why on earth they would pay people to come on and defend Trump is beyond me, Let him send someone on his payroll to do it, that’s what mid-level staffers are for, and it isn’t like the DNC doesn’t have people on the payroll to send either.

      • They don’t pay guests, just contributors. I speak from experience. If you only have guests taking one point of view, that’s MSNBC.

      • Glenn Logan

        Don’t recall saying anything about Trump. I did mention Republicans, but that’s hardly the same thing.

        As far as hiring Brazile is concerned, it has nothing to do with need. In my opinion, it’s all about want, and they want to hire her back.

  2. Other Bill

    Thanks Jack. Brazile’s being enabled by CNN has always driven me absolutely nuts. Frankly, I suspect she gets a double secret pass because she’s a charming black woman with a very seemingly gracious Southern manner. Ironically, I think she and James Carville are cut from the exact same cloth.

    Nice distinction between fake news and propaganda. Very edifying. Thanks.

    • Other Bill

      On second thought on the fake new/propaganda front, I’d say Brazile’s piece is propaganda and TIME’s publishing it is propagandizing. Writing and publishing articles trying to rehabilitate her may be described as fake news, but the effort doing so is attempting to advance is an effort to propagandize readers. Hence, fake news is simply an element of an over all effort at propaganda and best understood as such.

  3. Sharon

    When Brazile was first asked about giving questions to Clinton and lied about it…she said…”First of all, I play straight up so I’m going to play straight up with you…”
    Anyone who has been accused of something and feels the need to preface the answer with any variation of “I’m not a liar” is a liar. I don’t believe s word that comes from her mouth.

  4. Chris

    I agree with your analysis of Brazille, but I’m not sure what the solution is for the headlines.

    “But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret” is what Brazille said, and the headlines report what she said accurately. Now, you, me, and everyone else who understands context knows that what she meant is that she regrets getting caught. But can an objective news report say that?

    What would have been a better headline?

    • Other Bill

      Not publishing anything about her would have been a good start. Not giving her a platform would have been nice. Banishing her from media. That might work.

    • ???
      Pretty easy: “Brazile Regrets Sending Hacked E-mails”

      Conservative sites are using “Brazile Admits Giving Clinton Debate Questions

      That’s better too.

      • Chris

        Thanks. You’re right, those are better.

        I also took issue with this:

        [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.

        What’s false about this? The FBI and our intelligence community did make this determination. You’re right that they haven’t provided anything more than circumstantial evidence for it, but it’s still true to say they made this determination.

  5. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    I put this on Facebook today, but this quote from Teddy Roosevelt from 1910 seems to fit the horrid Donna Brazile:

    It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. — TR

  6. Jeff

    “The objective isn’t any political spin. The objective is to make good old Donna, corrupt as she is, respectable, believable, and employable again.”

    What’s the end game of making Brazile “legitimate” again, though? It’s so she can return to her role in the army of Democrats pushing a particular political agenda behind a thin, false veneer of “independent analysis” or whatever bogus title the CNNs of the world bestow to to guests who come on to toe the party line.

    I understand the distinction you’re trying to make, but I think in today’s hyper-politicized newsrooms, it seems like a distinction without a difference. Major media outlets have dispensed with almost all pretense of impartiality and are flatly engaging in political spin even in news articles, not just in editorial content. In this environment, nearly all fake news *is* propaganda, because the goal, at the end of the day, is to drive political opinions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s