CNN’s Dana Bash and the Oldest Profession

 

You can see it. Dana Bash struggled to ask questions she didn’t want to ask, because she knew that even the easiest question would tax the dim-witted woman Bash and her employer were committed to promoting. You could see the discomfort on her face. There may yet be a spark down there, deep inside, screaming at her betrayal of what she imagined her career would be.

Bash: How do you explain your apparent change of position on [name an issue; she’s changed them all]?

Harris: “My position/feelings/values have not changed,” despite her positions having changed completely on essentially everything.

I thought Dana Bash actually looked pained knowing that she was prostituting her professional reputation, whatever is left of it, in service to such a stunning mediocrity. No follow-ups, no “but you said” responses, nothing that would justify one calling oneself a journalist. No evidence at all that she wasn’t on the DNC payroll.

Did Bash think to herself, I am throwing away the dregs of my integrity for you, and I’m so much better than that? Or did she just smile, and think of CNN?

Keeping a woman of Harris’ resounding incompetence afloat must necessarily drown countless others. In some ways, the worst thing about this fraud of a campaign is that it demands so much from those who sacrifice their integrity in order to throw Harris the softballs that are absolutely essential to her survival — softballs that Harris nonetheless whiffs with embarrassing consistency, whiffs with the lack of self-awareness that only truly stupid people can pull off with confidence.

She is a joke of a candidate, a ludicrous mistake. Trump is a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. Harris is stupid.

She could still win: Our press is that bad. But she will win only if the press drags her across the finish line, its collective hand placed firmly over her mouth, whispering, “Just shut up” every step of the way.

Published in Election 2024
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 70 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    As you may have guessed, I’m old enough to remember when there was a reporting section and an opinion/editorial section. You had no doubt which section you were reading.

    With respect, I think this is a false memory. There is no period of the history of newspapers where the ‘reporting’ has not been in service of a narrative, whether that of the proprietor or the ‘public interest’. No matter what journalism ‘professors’ tell themselves.

    I wonder.

    A substantial majority of reporters today push a shared narrative, which happens to be left.

    I can easily believe that reporters have always had their biases, and that it colored much of their reporting. (I’m not convinced that it was as pronounced as it is today. But it might’ve been.)

    I am skeptical that the news industry as a whole was as ideologically monolithic as it is today.

    I read about a television reporter dying a while back. He had been retired for decades. In the article, the author said something like, “I watched him read the news for almost twenty years and I had no idea what his politics were.” High praise, I think. Could that be said about anyone today?

    I suspect many of them refuse to do that, because if they just report the facts they aren’t “doing” anything, and a robot could replace them.  Indeed, perhaps mostly they should.

    • #61
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    genferei (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    As you may have guessed, I’m old enough to remember when there was a reporting section and an opinion/editorial section. You had no doubt which section you were reading.

    With respect, I think this is a false memory. There is no period of the history of newspapers where the ‘reporting’ has not been in service of a narrative, whether that of the proprietor or the ‘public interest’. No matter what journalism ‘professors’ tell themselves.

    There was a period of history when they pretended to separate reporting and opinion, though, and in which high school textbook writers tried to fool students into thinking it worked that way.  

    • #62
  3. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I just tried to find “journal-list” on the Internet and I couldn’t do it. that was the email list in 2007 2008 among all of the leftist journalists.  

    • #63
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I just tried to find “journal-list” on the Internet and I couldn’t do it. that was the email list in 2007 2008 among all of the leftist journalists.

    Journolist

    • #64
  5. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Duplicate

    • #65
  6. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Who asked softer softball questions, Dana Bash (Kamala Harris) or Tucker Carlson (Junior Kennedy…

    CNN is coaxing Harris away from her liquor cabinet, trying to dry her out, and coaching her through an interview and even then, there own post-interview analysis was dismissive of the Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States. When the Democratic Party goes anti-speech, they go all in.

    This is the first time I have seen Ms Harris accused of being a drunk. Do you have any citations, or is this innuendo?

    Based entirely on my extensive experience with alcoholics and her conduct on camera over the last few weeks. Take it for what it’s worth.

    And you’re far from alone in that evaluation.

    Scott Adams has made that assertion on his podcast with lots of video and soundbites to illustrate it.

    • #66
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Inactive
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    genferei (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    As you may have guessed, I’m old enough to remember when there was a reporting section and an opinion/editorial section. You had no doubt which section you were reading.

    With respect, I think this is a false memory. There is no period of the history of newspapers where the ‘reporting’ has not been in service of a narrative, whether that of the proprietor or the ‘public interest’. No matter what journalism ‘professors’ tell themselves.

    Or Professional Journalists for that matter. 

    I just wish they would go back to being honest about it. 

    • #67
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    As you may have guessed, I’m old enough to remember when there was a reporting section and an opinion/editorial section. You had no doubt which section you were reading.

    With respect, I think this is a false memory. There is no period of the history of newspapers where the ‘reporting’ has not been in service of a narrative, whether that of the proprietor or the ‘public interest’. No matter what journalism ‘professors’ tell themselves.

    Or Professional Journalists for that matter.

    I just wish they would go back to being honest about it.

    I don’t know that they were ever “obvious” about it, as in stating “Yes, I’m biased.”  They just didn’t try to deny it all the time.

    • #68
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Inactive
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    genferei (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    As you may have guessed, I’m old enough to remember when there was a reporting section and an opinion/editorial section. You had no doubt which section you were reading.

    With respect, I think this is a false memory. There is no period of the history of newspapers where the ‘reporting’ has not been in service of a narrative, whether that of the proprietor or the ‘public interest’. No matter what journalism ‘professors’ tell themselves.

    Or Professional Journalists for that matter.

    I just wish they would go back to being honest about it.

    I don’t know that they were ever “obvious” about it, as in stating “Yes, I’m biased.” They just didn’t try to deny it all the time.

    Back in the day, the papers were quite clear. This whole objective thing is a post WWII artifact.

    It is not normal.

    Ironically one of the great complaints about the internet and having all these different voices is that people are fractured and listening to the news that they like. 

    That is exactly what it used to be when you had multiple newspapers and people would read the newspaper they liked. 

    I think it was the Aurora that was so pro Jefferson and the Democrat Republicans. 

    If somehow the media were able to be objective, I might have a different opinion, but they are so clearly unobjective. They are so clearly biased towards the elite point of view and they grow more elite all the time. More uniform in their mindset all the time and are literally married to the very people they’re supposed to hold accountable. 

    Heck, let’s look at Jonah Goldberg. He’s A pundit. Not a reporter so there is that. But he’s literally married to somebody who works in politics or at least used to work in politics. Now he was open about it. How often does some mainstream media person stand up and say now is a disclaimer? My wife works for the Democrat Party? 

    • #69
  10. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I get all of my information from biased sources. I ***never*** lose a policy argument. 

    You don’t need inflation.

    You don’t need the government producing anything except actual public goods. 

    There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, except we aren’t following it closely enough.

    Unfunded liabilities are an epic disaster. 

    The Ludwig von Mises Institute Is Right About Everything™

    • #70
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.