Kass to press: Burn your bad sources or lose your credibility
With the release of the Mueller report, as well as the failing impeachment bid, both of which have been exposed as a pack of swamp lies, one group of people are not getting the scrutiny they deserve: the press.
The media in fact have worked hand in glove in perpetrating the lies through all those anonymous sources, and now they have egg all over their faces for perpetrating lies.
John Kass of the Chicago Tribune asks why the hell the press isn't rebelling at this act of being used by swamp creatures, all of whom have been discredited now, citing the normal rules of big-city journalism:
But when will reporters who carried water for this crew of whisperers admit they've been lied to and expose the liars?
Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone [who have called out the press for this stuff] are not conservatives. They are of the left. And they are pushing for answers.
Washington is too fancy for me. I'd get lost in that modern Versailles, a company town of smooth courtiers and Kemalist bureaucrats who protect the state from the people.
But in Chicago, if an anonymous source lies to you, and that leads to bogus reporting, if you've been used, you have an obligation to your readers, viewers and your craft.
If a source burns you, gives you bad information, you burn him back. You don't let a source use you as some political pawn with lies to pursue some political agenda on your dime. You do that pour encourager les autres, to keep the other jerks out there from getting ideas. That's the normal practice, the only thing that keeps word from getting out that you're some kind of whore, easy to use for whatever purpose.
Do these guys have that kind of integrity? Not in the Washington press corps. Those guys are leftists, Democratic Party operatives with bylines, ends-justifies-the-means-type people, but they'd still like you to think they are fair and impartial.
Not only are they protecting sources who have forfeited their right to protection, but they have been active participants in the schemes of the plotters. Here's one dirty trick the swampers, with a willing press handmaiden, pulled on new White House chief of staff Reince Priebus in the early days of the Trump administration.
Here's an even bigger one: the Steele dossier, which had been created by Team Hillary, shopped around in the press, the press wouldn't touch it because it was so scurrilous, and then the now-former FBI director James Comey initiated a meeting with President Trump to supposedly tell him about it, but mainly to give the skittish press a news hook to get them to get it out there. CNN and others refused to soil themselves by putting their name on it, but BuzzFeed, with sleep-with-her-sources Ali Watkins on staff, printed it with gusto. Just reportin' the facts, ma'am. The Steele dossier was garbage, and the FBI knew it, the Horowitz report has shown, but the bureau sure as heck wanted it out there, and its people used the press like two-dollar hookers to get the job done.
Now, it's not as if the press doesn't have a "thing" for not burning sources. The Washington Post gladly burned White House scheduler Madeleine Westerhout after getting her drunk and enticing her to say indiscreet things about President Trump's family, things that made Trump look like a rat, actually. It's always OK to burn a source if one can Get Trump. Too bad about hapless Madeleine. She was an easy one to burn. But who was in deeper with the swamp activity to perpetrate lies than the WaPo, which is still protecting its sources on the entire Russia hoax and the rubbish that has come out beyond? Why are they protecting those sources and their own role in "servicing" those sources but hanging Madeleine out to dry?