Showing posts with label Joe McGinniss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe McGinniss. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Sunday, October 02, 2011
The Single Thread That Unravels Joe McGinniss' Career
McGinniss' double-talk has destroyed his credibility
Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.
After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.
The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.
For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.
But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.
McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.
Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.
In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.
"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."
The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.
But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.
As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:
It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.
So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.
With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.
The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.
Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.
After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.
The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.
For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.
But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.
McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.
Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.
In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.
"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."
The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.
But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.
As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:
"'There was no religion,' an insider reveals. 'There was nothing about God. There was no Christ. Nobody prayed. No Bibles. No crosses. None of that was ever there. Never.'"So McGinniss writes that Palin is, deep down, a fanatical religious fundamentalist. And he also writes that Palin's public displays of religious belief are a sham, because she and her family are not even remotely religious.
It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.
So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.
With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.
The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Creepy Little Bastard Joe McGinniss Can't Keep His Tabloid Stories Straight
Joe McGinnis, no longer a respected, reputable journalist, can't keep his story straight. First he claims supermarket tabloids used him as a source, then later admits he used the National Enquirer as a source.
In other news, none other than Sarah Palin's brother was cited as a source in McGinnis' book, but was never actually spoken to by the author. He's even declared that anything attributed to him by McGinniss was a lie.
It says more than what anyone needs to know about the journalistic integrity of McGinniss' work. More specifically, the lack thereof.
In other news, none other than Sarah Palin's brother was cited as a source in McGinnis' book, but was never actually spoken to by the author. He's even declared that anything attributed to him by McGinniss was a lie.
It says more than what anyone needs to know about the journalistic integrity of McGinniss' work. More specifically, the lack thereof.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Palin-esque Absurdity of it All
It's not about an ugly fence -- it's about an over-obsessive stalker
Some writers manage to demonstrate an incredible gift for missing anything even resembling the point.
Cue Washington Post columnist Adrian Higgins, whose most recent offering is an insipid op/ed entitled "Sarah Palin's fence didn't have to be so ugly".
Right. Because that's what the entire affair is about: an ugly fence.
Apparently, it isn't about an over-obsessive author-turned-stalker who lacked the judgement to recognize that moving in next door to the subject of his most recent book so he could spy on her private life was an unethical idea, even if the neighbour offered to rent him the property.
No. Apparently, the entire matter is about an ugly fence.
This is apparently the absurdity that the American left-wing media has sunk to in this ongoing TMZ moment: suggesting that Palin simply could have planted some really tall hedges if she wanted to protect her family's privacy from the prying eyes of McGinniss.
As it turns out, there very much is something about Sarah Palin that drives the American left into these absurd corners. It seems they need to make this entire affair about the fence, and Higgins has gone to Andrew Sullivan-esque lengths of reputation self-destruction in order to justify it.
If these were rational people, they would recognize that McGinniss' invasion of Palin's privacy is beneath contempt, and would recognize that their lame defenses of it are likewise.
But there's something about Palin that renders these people utterly incapable of rationality. Their defenses of the entire affair would be better not justified with response if it weren't for the fact that rubbing the noses of such individuals in their own stupidity wasn't actually a public service (Andrew Sullivan, a whole lot of people are looking your way right about now -- and not just Bill Maher).
Of course, the American left can do what they will. It won't salvage Joe McGinniss' reputation -- which has been reduced to just a few notches above the level of Herbert from Family Guy.
They would be doing themselves a service if they stopped allowing their own reputations to be dragged under right alongside it -- but this is something that the mania Sarah Palin inspires in them will not allow them to do.
Some writers manage to demonstrate an incredible gift for missing anything even resembling the point.
Cue Washington Post columnist Adrian Higgins, whose most recent offering is an insipid op/ed entitled "Sarah Palin's fence didn't have to be so ugly".
Right. Because that's what the entire affair is about: an ugly fence.
Apparently, it isn't about an over-obsessive author-turned-stalker who lacked the judgement to recognize that moving in next door to the subject of his most recent book so he could spy on her private life was an unethical idea, even if the neighbour offered to rent him the property.
No. Apparently, the entire matter is about an ugly fence.
This is apparently the absurdity that the American left-wing media has sunk to in this ongoing TMZ moment: suggesting that Palin simply could have planted some really tall hedges if she wanted to protect her family's privacy from the prying eyes of McGinniss.
As it turns out, there very much is something about Sarah Palin that drives the American left into these absurd corners. It seems they need to make this entire affair about the fence, and Higgins has gone to Andrew Sullivan-esque lengths of reputation self-destruction in order to justify it.
If these were rational people, they would recognize that McGinniss' invasion of Palin's privacy is beneath contempt, and would recognize that their lame defenses of it are likewise.
But there's something about Palin that renders these people utterly incapable of rationality. Their defenses of the entire affair would be better not justified with response if it weren't for the fact that rubbing the noses of such individuals in their own stupidity wasn't actually a public service (Andrew Sullivan, a whole lot of people are looking your way right about now -- and not just Bill Maher).
Of course, the American left can do what they will. It won't salvage Joe McGinniss' reputation -- which has been reduced to just a few notches above the level of Herbert from Family Guy.
They would be doing themselves a service if they stopped allowing their own reputations to be dragged under right alongside it -- but this is something that the mania Sarah Palin inspires in them will not allow them to do.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The American Left's TMZ Moment
Never has a lop-sided, hastily-erected fence sparked such speculation in the not-so-hallowed falls of the internets.
Yet when Todd Palin set to work feverishly constructing a fence between the home he and his wife Sarah Palin -- the former Governor or Alaska, and former Vice Presidential nominee -- share with their children and the property currently being occupied by author Joe McGinniss, it didn't take long for a photo of a section of that fence to appear on the internet.
The photo reveals a massive gap under the bottom of the lop-sided fence, indicating the clearly-poor crafmanship of the work.
Then again, quality craftsmanship requires time. And when a would-be journalist is watching your family's private moments from the house next door, you start building fast.
The incident has revealled, once again, the self-serving nature of many of those who occupy the far left -- even those who occupy the far left under the guise of being conservative.
Case in point:
In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan wrote a fine and thoughtful book on the meaning of what it is to be a conservative. But in joining the "Bristol Palin is Trig Palin's mother" rush, Sullivan demolished his own credibility. He chose to become, essentially, a left-wing birther.
(And while right-wing birthers are concerned about the birth certificate of the American President -- a matter that would be of great social consequence if it weren't total nonsense -- Sullivan and company are concerned about the birth certificate of Palin's child. Sad world.)
It's on this note that some would imagine that Sullivan would decide to stop self-immolating, and leave Sarah Palin alone.
Nope. In a Daily Dish blog post about Palin and McGinnis, Sullivan snidely remarks: "I'm hardly surprised that Sarah Palin has had a conniption over someone threatening to commit journalism in her vicinity."
Apparently, to Andrew Sullivan, that's what this entire sorry affair is: journalism.
It isn't voyeurism for the satisfaction of a cabal of far-left-wingers who despise Palin. It's journalism.
Of course, there are other individuals, relentlessly invasive of the privacy of public figures, who call themselves journalists: the paparazzi.
Certainly, many among the paparazzi aspire to journalism. The problem for them is that they possess no quality journalistic skills. Accordingly, they become relegated to a dark corner of the world of journalism where they simply invade the privacy of celebrities in order to sell the photos they take for money.
This is apparently the depth that McGinniss has sunk to. Evidently, possessing no quality journalistic skills, he instead spies on the Palin family, presumably so he can include what he sees in their home in a book -- to be entitled Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously.
To visit Wasilla, interview locals, perhaps even friends, family or adversaries of Palin would be one thing. But moving in next door and playing at being a Peeping Tom?
Another thning entirely.
Which reminds one of the genius of TMZ. TMZ is basically an infotainment program/website largely centred around the papparazzi. But rather than glorifying papparazzos, the show focuses on showcasing the ridiculousness of said papparazzos, and the kinds of stupid questions they tend to ask their subjects.
The current plight of Sarah Palin and family is a reminder of how ridiculous the left-wing media can be.
That someone like Andrew Sullivan, who describes himself to be a conservative, would join the ranks of their cheerleaders is rather embarrassing -- but, as in most cases of Andrew Sullivan and embarrassment, the embarrassment remains his.
Yet when Todd Palin set to work feverishly constructing a fence between the home he and his wife Sarah Palin -- the former Governor or Alaska, and former Vice Presidential nominee -- share with their children and the property currently being occupied by author Joe McGinniss, it didn't take long for a photo of a section of that fence to appear on the internet.
The photo reveals a massive gap under the bottom of the lop-sided fence, indicating the clearly-poor crafmanship of the work.
Then again, quality craftsmanship requires time. And when a would-be journalist is watching your family's private moments from the house next door, you start building fast.
The incident has revealled, once again, the self-serving nature of many of those who occupy the far left -- even those who occupy the far left under the guise of being conservative.
Case in point:
In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan wrote a fine and thoughtful book on the meaning of what it is to be a conservative. But in joining the "Bristol Palin is Trig Palin's mother" rush, Sullivan demolished his own credibility. He chose to become, essentially, a left-wing birther.
(And while right-wing birthers are concerned about the birth certificate of the American President -- a matter that would be of great social consequence if it weren't total nonsense -- Sullivan and company are concerned about the birth certificate of Palin's child. Sad world.)
It's on this note that some would imagine that Sullivan would decide to stop self-immolating, and leave Sarah Palin alone.
Nope. In a Daily Dish blog post about Palin and McGinnis, Sullivan snidely remarks: "I'm hardly surprised that Sarah Palin has had a conniption over someone threatening to commit journalism in her vicinity."
Apparently, to Andrew Sullivan, that's what this entire sorry affair is: journalism.
It isn't voyeurism for the satisfaction of a cabal of far-left-wingers who despise Palin. It's journalism.
Of course, there are other individuals, relentlessly invasive of the privacy of public figures, who call themselves journalists: the paparazzi.
Certainly, many among the paparazzi aspire to journalism. The problem for them is that they possess no quality journalistic skills. Accordingly, they become relegated to a dark corner of the world of journalism where they simply invade the privacy of celebrities in order to sell the photos they take for money.
This is apparently the depth that McGinniss has sunk to. Evidently, possessing no quality journalistic skills, he instead spies on the Palin family, presumably so he can include what he sees in their home in a book -- to be entitled Sarah Palin's Year of Living Dangerously.
To visit Wasilla, interview locals, perhaps even friends, family or adversaries of Palin would be one thing. But moving in next door and playing at being a Peeping Tom?
Another thning entirely.
Which reminds one of the genius of TMZ. TMZ is basically an infotainment program/website largely centred around the papparazzi. But rather than glorifying papparazzos, the show focuses on showcasing the ridiculousness of said papparazzos, and the kinds of stupid questions they tend to ask their subjects.
The current plight of Sarah Palin and family is a reminder of how ridiculous the left-wing media can be.
That someone like Andrew Sullivan, who describes himself to be a conservative, would join the ranks of their cheerleaders is rather embarrassing -- but, as in most cases of Andrew Sullivan and embarrassment, the embarrassment remains his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)