I try hard not to hold grudges. I’m trying to learn from Spuds, my sweet pit bull mix: if a dog attacks him, he’ll defend himself, then come back up to the same dog later, tail wagging, trying to make friends. Maybe because I don’t have a tail, it’s a little harder than that for me to let bygones be bygones, especially when the offense is betrayal. Kara Swisher never betrayed me; but she has generally irritated me with her cool-progressive-lesbian branding and her unwavering leftward totalitarian bias.
Her EA dossier is here…at heart, she’s a self-made tech niche opinion journalist who likes censorship, and I say to hell with her. Mostly I try to ignore Kara, because I still remember that while she was bouncing around the Washington Post in the Eighties and Nineties she briefly ended up doing column about local theater she was unfair to The American Century Theater, my baby. She had no background in theater and no talent as a reviewer, but never mind: the Post’s apathy toward any professional theater (among the 80 plus that were operating then, including mine) other than handful of big ones was obvious.
Swisher ghosted a couple of excellent and gutsy classic plays The American Century Theater mounted that were too “dated” for her to waste time with— no same-sex marriages or something; I don’t even remember. I do remember that one snub ticked me off so much that I wrote a letter of complaint to the Post’s Style section. (You weren’t supposed to do that because the Post would take revenge on you by not sending any reviewers to your theater at all, and, come to think of it, that’s what they did. Of course, the ones they were hurting most were their readers, who never learned about some terrific and thought-provoking productions, but that’s our Post!)
Anyway, Kara moved on to bigger things at the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal after she decided that the internet was where the action is. I admit, I have mostly ignored her because I knew I would have a hard time being objective, unless her misdeed was especially acute. (Naturally, she hates Donald Trump: in 2019, she wrote that he “spends much of his time labeling mainstream media an “enemy of the people.” Much of his time? I also pointed out that in fact Trump was and is 100% correct, and Swisher is an example of why.)
Now she’s podcasting, and a recent exchange with guest Scott Jennings, CNN’s token conservative, made be feel better about hating Swisher’s guts. They were talking about the 50 plus U.S. intelligence officials who banded together to claim that Hunter Biden’s laptop was really a Russian disinformation project.
JENNINGS: “The story was true. There wasn’t really any dispute of that — other than from these 50 people who come from government who are in and out of government when Democrats are in power.”
SWISHER: “That’s politics to me, Scott! You’re not naive. They were making their case.”
JENNINGS: “I don’t agree that it is just a simple matter of making your case … It was one of the biggest lies that was told to try to get Joe Biden over the finish line! You think that’s just politics as usual!?”
SWISHER: “Yes, I do, actually.”
Nice. Enemy of the people! I think I’ll stay biased against Kara Swisher for the forseeable future.
Ethics Alarms 
“made me feel better about hating”
A questionable service, IMO…
I think Spuds is providing a better model!
Oh, he’d bite her for sure. Scott Jennings should have.
Bias formed from an assessment of observed behaviors is not a failing. This is part of Trumps problems in that those inclined to hate him will focus on his exaggerated claims and form a bias about his truthfulness. Unfortunately, that bias causes the holder to be blind to an overall assessment of the individual’s record of accomplishment
The key to making your biases work in a good way is to not let the insignificant issues cloud a thorough examination of the more important ones. On the other hand if something is beyond the pale in terms of behavior redemption of character is difficult. This is what I have taken from the definition of signature significance
My mentors adage concerning humanity holds true again, “once an asshole, always an asshole.”
applying to the Left, they are all assholes, that is not bias, tha is observational affirmation.
Delightful!
I’ve always avoided those spy movies about, nasty, out-of-control people in the government plotting to kill each other or their elected bosses to maintain power. Turns out, those movies are evidently documentaries.
She looks like a “Doonesbury” character. I never liked “Doonesbury.” Too cool for school.
Actually, she looks like Ray Donovan’s cool and openly gay henchwoman in his Hollywood fixer business. She kills people. And would also probably argue that doing so is “just politics as usual.”
I think she’s also leaning into a Michael Jackson look. Interesting. I guess it’s also the dated Joe and Hunter Biden aviator look. Funny.
If this is really about confronting your biases, you did an awful job especially when you spent the entire introduction explaining how much you hate this person and why.
What part of the word “confronting” eludes you? That involves 1) admitting a bias and 2) presenting the reasons for it. It’s not cool to be a jerk just to be a jerk, M.
That was my thought. Confronting does not mean overcoming. But, it does require an acknowledgement of the bias.
-Jut