Oh-Oh. If a Journalist I Regard As Incompetent Just Wrote Something Almost Identical To What I Would Write, What Does That Say About Me?

Chris Cillizza alternately writes the obvious as if it is a new revelation, follows the mainstream media’s pro-Left lockstep, He now in in the opinion for profit business, unlike me, who is in the opinion for free business, and yes, I realize that this places my criticism of Cillizza’s acumen on shaky ground immediately.

He recently wrote a substack essay (his newsletter is called “Chris Crucial”….no, I’m not kidding) titled “What does Kamala Harris *actually* believe?” criticized the “She Isn’t What She Is” candidate for so flagrantly flip-flopping to pander to voters who might be inclined to oppose a radical progressive, which is what she had been literally up to this moment. The essay concludes,

“Harris staked out all of her more liberal policy positions when she thought that the path to the 2020 Democratic nomination would be to portray herself as a more electable Bernie Sanders. Now that she is the Democratic nominee, she is walking away from them because she needs to appeal to the electoral middle. I get it! But it also makes me wonder — and should make you wonder too — whether she actually believes in any sort of specific policies. Or whether everything is negotiable based on her political circumstances.”

Hasn’t anyone not in thrall to the Democratic Party no matter who or what it nominates figure that out about Harris? And yet this unremarkable analysis unleashed the whirlwind on poor Chris, resulting in that declaration of independence above. I have written almost the identical sentiments as each of Cillizza’s points on Ethics Alarms, usually in comments, some of the many times. The problem is that Cillizza is hack as well as an idiot. I wrote about him in one post,

“….journalists, as a group, just aren’t that sharp. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions: this is a field that has never attracted the best and the brightest, and it is a structural problem that has become a major problem in the age of the “new journalism,” which is advocacy journalism, as in unethical journalism. The people with the largest metaphorical megaphone lack the wisdom, acumen, education of critical thinking skills to justify their having it. Yet they really think they know best, and have the right and the duty to use a job that was supposed to be about informing the public to manipulate public opinion for what journalists think is “the greater good.” They don’t know what the greater good is. Most don’t know what “good” is.

Chris Cillizza isn’t just any journalist: he’s supposed to be one of the better ones. Horrible thought: he probably is. He’s an editor at CNN, and before that he wrote the daily political blog of The Washington Post, and was a regular writer for the Post on political issues as well as a frequent panelist on “Meet the Press.” He also has a long rap sheet on Ethics Alarms, despite the fact that I avoid following his regular forays into fake news, propaganda, and biased punditry. Who knows what I’ve missed.

What I haven’t missed is plenty, though. In a 2019 post, for example, Cillizza wrote that Secretary of State William Seward’s purchase of Alaska from Russia “didn’t work out too well,” which is why it is called “Seward’s Folly.” When I finished taping my skull back together, I wrote,

It is astounding that Cillizza could write this, and that CNN could allow it to be published. Never mind that Alaska has the largest oil field in North America. In Harvard historian Oscar Handlin’s book,”Chance Or Destiny: Turning Points In American History,” the purchase of Alaska is #5 out of ten. Written during the Cold War (I have an old copy of it right here, because unlike Chris Cillizza, I know something about American history, ’cause I read and stuff…), the book explains that had it not been for Seward’s prescient purchase, “the bases that today flank the northern  ocean would not have been American, pointing toward  Asia, but Russian, pointing toward the United States.  If our citizens, in the air age, still feel that distance from the potential enemy gives some security to their national  borders, it is in no small measure due to Mr. Seward’s  bargain.”.

That’s right, bargain. Alaska’s location is now  considered critical protection for the continental United States, and has been for about a hundred years. The state is uniquely positioned for supporting space surveillance and satellite control networks, tracking thousands of orbital objects on a daily basis, and providing access to refueling tankers and the Greenland ice sheet.

Did it ever occur to Cillizza to do a little research regarding Alaska, since he obvious knows less than nothing about it (knowing what isn’t true is less than nothing)? Nah. Nobody checks facts at CNN anyway.

Saying that the Alaska purchase is known today as “Seward’s Folly” is like saying that the sun never sets on the British Empire, or that Babe Ruth holds the career home run record. Try to keep up, Chris: the name “Seward’s Folly”—cartoonists drew Alaska as a worthless and uninhabitable iceberg, which is what most Americans, who were like Chris, though they had an excuse, it being the 19th Century and all—- was officially retired in 1896. That was when the Klondike Gold Rush brought over100,000 prospectors to Alaska , creating “boom towns,” businesses, and eventually, a new state.

The man is an idiot. In another infamous post, Cillizza put his name on a story headlined, “The New Sneaky Issue in the 2022 Election.” The “new issue”? Illegal immigration. In 2020, Cillizza claimed that President Trump’s use of the word “riots” to describe Black Lives Matter riots was racist. The Cillizza EA dossier is full of either throbbing progressive, anti-Trump bias, or disqualifying outbreaks of journalism malpractice, and yet there he is, sounding just like me.

Where’s a wood-chipper when you need one?

Wow. The Corrupt Journalism “Profession” Really Doesn’t Get That Ethics Thingy, Does It?

A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, wrote an op-ed for the Times’ arch rival the Washington Post that was so jaw-droppingly infuriating that it took me three tries to finish it. It had the Axis-speak headline “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America.” (I have a pay-wall-escape link for you.)

The publisher of one of the most influential fake news purveyors in the media thinks Donald Trump is planting the seeds of censorship by correctly, fairly, and invaluably having the guts to call what the current plague of “advocacy journalism” really is. His tagging of the mainstream media as an “enemy of the people” was similarly apt, and just as important.

At its core, Sultzberger’s indignant screed amounts to “How dare he?” That is a ludicrous stance for the publisher of a newspaper that has abused its mission openly by (among other things) stating on multiple occasions that it would slant its reporting against Donald Trump. “Fake news,” far from being an invitation to censor the press, is a necessary reminder not to trust the press as well as the rest of the mainstream media.

Indeed, the op-ed is, ironically, an excellent example of why this bunch is so untrustworthy. Althouse wrote today,

The #1 thing I didn’t say but wanted to say was that contrary to Sulzberger’s perverted argument, criticizing the press is not censorship. Criticizing the press is more speech. Trump has been criticizing the press. It is Trump’s antagonists who have pursued censorship, for many reasons, including his criticism of the press.

The news media was given great power by the First Amendment as well as the right to abuse it, which it has increasingly in recent years. Media censorship of the news that doesn’t support the narratives and policies favored by alleged journalists who lack the skills and intellect to responsively wield control over public knowledge is the real threat to democracy, not Donald Trump calling it what it is.

Althouse also quotes Glenn Reynolds, who wrote yesterday,

Well, if you guys would stop lying so much — *cough* Russian Collusion *cough* — and start reporting actual news *cough* Hunter’s laptop *cough* — maybe he wouldn’t have gotten traction with [“fake news”]. But in fact you’re the guys trying to shut down reporting and opinion that run against your chosen storylines, which are often false. And now that people have noticed you’re trying to shift the blame. Stop trying to pretend that we have healthy, normal institutions. We don’t. You aren’t.

I would have coughed a lot more, notably after Sulzberger’s repeated defense of “independent journalists.” Does he really think that anyone paying attention regards Times reporters and pundits as “independent”? Or is “independent” his deceitful way of making readers think he’s talking about objectivity?

I suspect the latter. Objectivity only intermittently creeps into the reporting of the Times, the Post, and…well, you can recite the list. Because you often can’t tell when that blessed event has occurred, the default attitude of any alert citizen has to be skepticism. That, Mr. Sulzberger, is why it is so important to call attention to fake news as a phenomenon and the frequency of its appearance in your media product and others. Its proliferation precludes trust.

And the news media has no one to blame for that but themselves.

First Friday Open Forum of September!

Last week, because of my training schedule, the Friday Forum was on a Thursday, so theoretically there ought to be more pent up ethics issues that Ethics Alarms has missed than usual. I bet there are more than usual for other reasons: as I predicted would happen as the Election to Save Democracy gets closer, EA has been set upon by single-purpose commenters whose objective is to discredit me and the site, usually by sealioning a single rebuttal to an essay critical of Harris, telling the truth about the rotting ethics of the Democratic Party, or defending Donald Trump against Axis smear attempts.

Typical was the exchange with a commenter on this post, who was determined to prove that Trump or his campaign using some video that was taken at an Arlington National Cemetery ceremony that he was invited to attend violated an “Army Rule.” When I told him that he needed to move on to another topic, as genuine and good faith commenters here do, he vanished, after wasting not just my time, but that of many commenters here as well.

No, I don’t believe that these are paid operatives; Ethics Alarms doesn’t have enough distribution or influence to be worth paying someone to do what the Trump-Deranged and knee-jerk progressives will do anyway for free.

I almost feel like I should apologize for the blog taking an obvious turn to substantially more political commentary this year, even more than in 2016 and 2020. Almost. I regard this as an unusually important ethics tipping point for the culture and the election. Trump is almost irrelevant (my opinion of the man, his character and his trustworthiness have only slightly improved since 2015): if the Axis strategy since Trump’s election in 2016 doesn’t finally result in the crushing rejection it deserves, all of those dire predictions about the fate of the U.S.A. will not be so hyperbolic after all.

But see if you can discuss something else….

FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings Are Out: Can You Guess Who’s Dead Last Again?

Of course it’s Harvard. My other alma mater, for which I worked as an administrator for several years, Georgetown, was ranked at #240 out of 251 schools. Harvard lapped the field however, with a perfect 0.00 score. Do read the report, rankings and details here, as depressing as they are regarding the ethics rot in higher education generally. At least I wasn’t disappointed or disillusioned about my two universities’ rankings and performance, since Ethics Alarms has covered the deterioration of both, not as extensively as FIRE, but enough to make it obvious to readers here (and me) that Harvard and Georgetown have busted ethics alarms.

Continue reading

I Hate to Say “I Told You So” Again Regarding What An Untrustworthy Demagogue Tucker Carlson Is, But I’m Saying It Again…

…because now Carlson is promoting a “historian” who says that Hitler was just trying to be kind when he tried to wipe out the Slavs and the Jews.

No, I am not exaggerating.

Back in May, I wrote about how despicable it was for Tucker Carlson, whom Ethics Alarms flagged as a self-promoting, unprincipled creep years ago, to interview Alex Jones (who claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax) as if the conspiracy peddler was a legitimate journalist. Ethics Alarms described Carlson as “a smug, narcissistic, ethics-challenged, unprincipled, Machiavellian demagogue who helps pollute our civic discourse rather than enhance it.” More:

“…since Fox News fired him (one more example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons), several publications have noted that Carlson’s focus has descended into cheap tabloid territory as he desperately seeks publicity, clicks and eyeballs. Of course he has. Carlson doesn’t need the money (he’s a trust fund kid and has a net worth estimated at $30 million); he could easily maintain whatever integrity he had and present serious, useful analysis from the conservative side on whatever platform he used as he waits for his Fox contract to run out. Nah, he wants fame and power.

Now, I can’t explain exactly how Carlson’s latest example of irresponsible journalism will help him in the power department, but his latest interview subject makes Alex Jones seem like Lowell Thomas. This week Carlson chose to interview Darryl Cooper, and introduced him as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” Best! Most honest! Cooper explained to Carlson’s audience that Winston Churchill was arguably “the chief villain of the Second World War” and “primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did.” After all, Churchill could have made a separate peace with Adolf, who didn’t want to fight Great Britain, and maybe then the war would have peacefully concluded with Hitler taking over the rest of Europe and the U.S. never having to get involved at all!

Continue reading

The Nauseating Arlington National Cemetery “Get Trump!” Fake News Episode [Corrected and Expanded]

A few preliminary comments to frame this story:

  • Again, this is how the news media sets out to fix a Presidential election.
  • Like so many of these incidents, by the time it has been spun, distorted and manipulated, the typical voter has no idea what really happened and lacks the time or interest to find out.
  • The double-standards applied to smear Donald Trump in service of the Democratic party can only be described as nauseating, because it goes beyond unethical and beyond corrupt to truly sickening. This sort of thing has been going on for most of a decade.
  • Because Ethics Alarms has to cover this [insert word for disgusting substance here] this blog and its author have to put up with constant accusations of “supporting Trump” and pushing right-wing narratives. I resent that, and I resent having to take time to discuss stories like this. I, along with everyone else (except that many of those everyones like the Left’s trashing of democracy) have been watching the mutated Left, also called the Axis of Unethical Conduct here, breach all previous standards of fair politics and journalism ethics in its determination to destroy and defeat Donald Trump. After all,  he is, due to some warped cosmic sense of humor, the major obstacle to its ultimate triumph. This assault on the public’s ability to know what is happening around it is, as I have said repeatedly, the worst, most dangerous and most important national ethics scandal since Jim Crow, or maybe McCarthyism.
  • I don’t want to write about this crap; I don’t have time for it, and doing so confers no benefits on me whatsoever.

With that off my metaphorical chest, here are the key points in the story. Characterizations may differ, but I am confident that what follows is accurate:

Continue reading

More Thoughts About “The Box”….

This is very strange. I wrote about the ethics horror movie “The Box” just this year, yet had no memory of writing the post or seeing the whole movie, despite stating in the post that I had. Then I noticed that the post was dated February 28, the day before I found my wife’s body in our living room. Apparently the shock erased some files.

Moreover, it is creepy that I posted on a movie about a couple that pushes a button on a mysterious box after being told that doing so will kill a stranger but also result in their receiving a million tax-free dollars from an anonymous authority, and shortly thereafter discovered that my own wife had died of unknown causes.

Did somebody push that button?

Continue reading

I Witnessed Trump Derangement Syndrome In Person Last Night

It was scary.

I was engaged to moderate a “talk back” on ethics and the issues raised in the British drama “A Number” last night. I may write about the play here later: it is an ethics story involving a failed father who sends his disturbed son away and replaces him with a clone, thus providing the father with a “do-over.” One of the main issues we discussed was whether the father evoked any sympathy as he tried to cope with the serial disasters his conduct had triggered, including the original son murdering his clone.

After the discussion, I was chatting with audience members as they filed out of the the theater. An elderly woman, her face flushed and contorted in anger, came up to me and said, “I completely agree with you that the father is a sociopath. He reminded me of Trump! I wanted to go up on stage and strangle him!” By the end of her statement, she was almost shouting.

“Thanks for coming!” I told her.

The character of the father has absolutely no resemblance to Donald Trump in any respect, not attitudes, actions, manner, appearance…nothing.

What IS It About Democrats And “Stolen Valor”?

It’s not enough that Kamala Harris deliberately placed on the ballot to be elected one heartbeat from the Presidency a Democratic governor , Tim Walz, who has been lying about his military combat record for more than 20 years. (Well, that was just “bad grammar”…). Nor that Richard Blumenthal, the senior United States Senator from Connecticut, also a Democrat, was cheerfully elected by Connecticut voters in 2010 (and re-elected in 2016 and 2022) despite repeatedly lying about being a Vietnam war veteran. For “Wait, there’s more!”Wes Moore to be precise, the Democratic governor of Maryland.

Moore, shown above as he gave a highlighted speech for the Harris-Walz ticket at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (he did not have a piece of the application for a prestigious White House fellowship in which he lied about receiving a Bronze Star hovering over his head, though) has been dispatched by the Harris campaign as a surrogate to defend Walz on cable television! What a good choice! After all, who better to try to rationalize lying about military service than someone who has done it himself!

Continue reading

Speaking of Kamala’s “Values”…

Ugh. I meant to include this in the previous post.

In September of 2019, Kamala Harris, then a Senator, wrote to Twitter on official Senate stationery that it should censor then-President Trump. CNN’s Jake Tapper challenged her on the suggestion. (She also tweeted that position.) “You wrote to Twitter and the CEO Jack Dorsey and asked him to take away the president’s Twitter handle. How is that not a violation of free speech? The President has the same rights that you have, that I have, how would that not be a slippery slope where they have to ban half of the people on Twitter?”

Harris’s totalitarian reply: “A corporation has obligations. Their Terms of Use dictate who receives the privilege of speaking on that platform, and who does not. And Donald Trump has clearly violated the Terms of Use, and there should be a consequence for that. Revoke someone’s privilege, because they have not lived up to the advantages of the privilege.”

There’s a Harris “value” for you, and the Biden Administration’s “value” as well. When the government applies pressure on a corporation to ban a political figure’s speech, indeed a sitting President’s speech as he seeks re-election, the “privilege” of communicating with the public on social media becomes a right being infringed by the government. Does Harris believe freedom of speech is a right or a privilege? That’s a “values” question Dana Bash should have asked Harris.

Nah. Too hard. She might have flubbed it.