In her new book, “Hacks: The Insider Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House,” Suddenly Ethical Donna Brazile takes a moment to slam Jake Tapper because he harshly criticized her after a leak reveealed that she had used her CNN position to procure debate question and pass them along under the table to Hillary. (Of course, if Clinton had any integrity, she would have refused—what am I SAYING?).
“The next day, even Jake Tapper took a swing at me, calling me unethical and ‘journalistically horrifying’ during a radio interview with WMAL even though I worked for CNN as a commentator not a journalist.When I called him on this, he did not apologize. His attack on me was really about him. He wrote in an email, ‘I don’t know what happened here except it undermines the integrity of my work and CNN … you have to know how betrayed we all feel.”
OH! Donna was a contributor, not a journalist! That changes everything! So as an individual who was contributing to a journalism product, as well as paid to do so, and being relied upon by journalists in a journalism-supplying entity to inform their audience honestly regarding what journalism covers by definition, Brazile as a paid contributor should not have been expected not required to tell the truth, be fair, maintain standards of integrity, state her biases and conflicts up front, or indeed engage in ethical conduct at all!
Is that the new definition of what “contributor” means? Boy, I think CNN needs to clarify this; I always assumed that if a network employed a “contributor,” that individual was being presented as someone who would be held to the same standards of professionalism as other on-screen employees.
I gather Donna is also saying that her employer, CNN, should not have been assumed she wouldn’t surreptitiously use her position to take proprietary information and undermine the integrity of a televised Presidential candidate debate on CNN that the network represented as fair and transparent. I’m curious: did her contributor status also justify her lying her head off and denying that she had done what she did when the story came out?
What is Brazile’s definition of “contributor,” then? Spy? Liar? Slimebag?
Contributing lying, spying, slimebag?
For Donna Brazile to be criticizing the Clinton campaign and the DNC on their ethics has to be make her a fast track candidate for the Pot and Kettle Hall of Infamy. This woman wouldn’t know an ethical principle if it was nailed to her chin.