HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » calimary » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26

calimary

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 54,898

Journal Archives

Exactly. That's why I dump on Michael Isikoff every chance I get.

The much-vaunted "investigative reporter" - who NOW goes on camera to opine, and spin, and "analyze", and he keeps repeating the phrase "what we don't know - is WHY."

Well, fuck, Isikoff, you're supposedly an "investigative reporter" and you were all over the Monica thing like a cheap suit. You had juicy new shit on that every time the red light turned on at the top of every TV camera, delivered with a gossipy sidelong smirk on your face. What, if anything, have you dug up here, 'eh????? Aren't YOU as an alleged "investigative reporter," supposed to be digging around and coming up with some substantive answers as to "WHY"? Forcryingoutloud, I can sit here and do that all day - that is, repeat the phrase "what we don't know - is WHY" and not get paid some princely sum for being an on-camera talking head, because I'm a total civilian now and have no sources anywhere and no access 'cause I'm completely out of the business and have been for years. YOU, on the other hand, are supposedly IN that job because you're an "investigative reporter," still supposedly on the beat, still supposedly with all kinds of access to all kinds of people who'll take your phone calls because you're famous and on TV, and years of source-cultivating behind you - AS, supposedly, an "investigative reporter."

So where are the goods, then? Why haven't you come up with anything meaty here? Why haven't you been digging and probing and working your sources to FIND OUT THE ANSWERS TO THAT "WHY"???? What are they paying you for? Because from what I've seen of your on-camera work since then, frickin' ANY rank amateur with no investigative experience or sources can do what you're doing these days.

I've said before, and I'll say it again - until it sticks: this is a guy who can't investigate his way around the inside of a paper bag unless there's a stained blue dress and a Clinton involved. I think he lives way down inside the pockets of the GOP. All he knows is obsessing on Democrats and sex. He's contributing NOTHING in the christie investigation. He's come up with SQUAT so far. I think that's because he's not really trying to. I suspect his "sources" "got nuthin'" on this. I suspect one of his close pals had to be ken starr. The VAST majority of them are undoubtedly republi-CON, and most of 'em by now are probably christie fans/apologists. So they're not gonna have the goods, or if they do, they're not gonna cough 'em up. Those republi-CONS all stick together and circle the wagons - unless or until their own necks are in nooses (like David Wildstein's is now).

Welcome to DU, Loaded Liberal Dem!

Glad you're here! A good point you made a few posts up! They're gas giants alright. The GOP seems to attract such things.

Another reason why it's just VITAL to connect the dots with these people. Follow the money. ALWAYS follow the money. That was true during Watergate. Still true today. Who's in bed with whom, who left how much money on the nightstand, and where (and who) did that money come from?

CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!! That's what Mad-Eye Moody always warned Harry Potter. It's also a warning well worth taking to heart in the non-fiction world we inhabit.

Same thing for Bridget of the Bridge. She hasn't said "peep" through her lawyers or otherwise.

She's still loyal to him, after he lambasted her and dragged her, verbally, out in public, by name, to throw under the bus - for lying to him? Hard to believe. Why is she protecting him? By his own loudly-stated standard - that if you lie, then you get fired - christie should step aside, or at least take a leave of absence or some such thing, or even face impeachment. That's what the editorial in one of the New Jersey papers stated today.

You took the "wow" right outta my mouth!

Several people in this thread did that!

Powerful!!

Excellent!!!

And he did suck. Bigtime. Hey, he earned every one of those signs, too!

The only "work" he really ever did.

Oh the humanity...

And I'm rather amused at watching Michael Isikoff blather on, on camera. All he's doing is to opine and then opine some more, with a bit of a brush-by of analysis thrown in so it sounds good. I stand by my original assessment of this dude - that he couldn't investigate his way around the inside of a paper bag unless there was a Clinton and a stained blue dress in there. He keeps saying - "we don't know WHY..." Well, if you're an investigative reporter, Isikoff, aren't you supposed to come up with some of the answers already? Isn't that supposed to be your job? Oh, I forgot - your all-GOP sources aren't helping you on this one, are they! All you're capable of "investigating" are Democrats, and especially sex scandals. And since there isn't much of either in this one, you're sitting there hogging face-time and opining and pontificating and then opining some more.

I'm still waiting for Michael Isikoff to impress me in a truly objective, non-partisan, non-salacious way. Anybody here old enough to remember Rona Barrett? She was mainly an L.A. ABC-TV and ABC network show-biz columnist/commentator and she dished her fair share of Hollywood gossip. Hated being called a "gossip columnist," but she did a lot of that aside from entertainment news. She had a segment every morning on "Good Morning America." She started at local L.A. television KABC and then went to the network. She moved to NBC and wound up not a very good fit. She ended up leaving NBC and television in general. That was during the 60s and 70s. Sorry to carry on about "old days," but it's instructive to know and consider what's come before - from which we can learn a lot as far as more successfully navigating the present.

What I'm getting to is - Isikoff reminds me of her on his many on-camera turns. She had a way of sitting - at a slight angle behind the long anchor desk. Sometimes it was her whole upper body facing very slightly off-camera including her face, or her upper body facing forward but her head cocked to one side. BUT her eyeballs looked back over toward the camera. It was body language of the first order. It rendered this sly-looking, sidelong gaze that suggested all kinds of meaning! Strike that pose yourself and see if it doesn't make you feel slightly sneaky/dirt-dishing/"Psst! Don't tell anybody but..." and even a little conspiratorial - wink-wink. It was almost the kind of posture you make when you're flirting and smiling while shaking your finger and saying "naughty-naughty!" Rona Barrett used that posture every night, and it conveyed powerful visual meaning. It undermined her argument that she was no gossip columnist - because dammit, sitting and looking sidelong at you that way from behind her desk made her look like one!!!

And I still remember Michael Isikoff copping that pose every night on TV when the Washington press corp(se) was digging into Bill Clinton's underwear drawer around the Monica Lewinsky witch-hunt. GOD he loved it. You could tell he was relishing every word and every camera-second! He damn near needed a bib! As near-slobbering as Chris Matthews becomes when he gets his little self all worked up. And he sat that way, with this conspiratorial "naughty-naughty" pose looking sidelong at you from his seat on the set. He doesn't have anything that meaty here. It's gotta be sex and Democrats to get a - um - rise out of him. He's an investigative reporter. He shouldn't be sitting there all afternoon repeating how "what we still don't know is the 'why'." Well, dude, that's your job. You are supposed to be an investigative reporter. You with the hot job on a big cable network. Where were you when the "peons" at the local New Jersey newspaper and online news service far away from the lights and cameras uncovered this story? Where are you now when it should be everybody else BUT you saying "what we still don't know is 'why'." You call yourself an investigative reporter? Well then, investigate. It could still put you in the running for a Pulitzer or something. At the moment, though, the big awards seem to be gravitating toward the Little Guy at the Local Paper like the Bergen Record or some humble community blog.

Ours too.

For some it used to be "Oprah's On!" And everything else would stop for an hour. Around our house, it's "Rachel's On!" Or - "I'll get back to you in an hour - I'm watching Rachel Maddow." It's true "Must See TV"! It's like a nightly master class in broadcast journalism.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26