Posted by
on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:57:59 PM
Our readers know that we listen to Hugh Hewitt. We read his blog, and we respect his opinion amidst the millions of bloggers out there. But this post today irritated the Hell out of both of us:David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times called my publisher today and requested an interview with me about A Mormon In The White House. I called him back, and the conversation began with the history of the project and my experience filmg Searching For God In America in the mid-90s. As is my practice, I invited him to conduct the interview on my show so that America could hear how the MSM goes about its work. He declined.
Then Mr. Kirkpatrick asked me how much my advance had been, which I declined to state.
He then asked if I was aware of a Boston Globe story from last year about Romney's spreading money around the conservative movement. I had not heard of or seen that story.
And shortly thereafter he asked if I or any entity related to me had been paid by Mitt Romney or any organization affiliated with him to write the book.
Excuse me? How does this relate to a legitimate question? Better question, since when do MSM journalists think that anyone who supports a particular public figure--be it the president, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, et al--suddenly need to be equated to Armstrong Williams? I find the question itself extremely offensive. I also find David Kirkpatrick's line of questioning very much out of line.
At this point, I'd bring up what I brought up to Hugh this afternoon when I called into his show: Did the New York Times get kickbacks from the book written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau that took a dirty swipe at the White house? did the New York Times bankroll the book? They did a big rollout for their book, did a fawning review of it, so did the New York Times get any money out of the deal? Better question, did they bankroll the book? See, it can cut both ways. For the record, I don't believe that they did pay them to write the book, nor do I think they received any sort of money in return for their investigative journalism.
Hugh's right. That question and that mindset is the equivalent of the old question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's lowbrow and completely unprofessional. David Kirkpatrick should be ashamed he even brought the question up, but he won't. And personally speaking, I don't think that his question was a deliberate swipe at Hugh. I think it goes more to the bias of the paper. It's obvious they don't like Republicans, or conservatives, in general. The interview he had with Hugh was obviously an attempt to dig up dirt that wasn't there to begin with.
This is why the New York Times is failing on every level, with nearly every major story they break. The supposition and bias inherent in their reporting shows through so badly that journalists like Mr. Kirkpatrick are reduced to the level of tabloid journalism; digging up dirt that doesn't exist just to push a story that's completely irrelevant.
Publius II