Howie Kurtz seems to find writing talent lacking in the blogosphere, or so it would seem given all the prime WaPo real estate he hands over to Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard in his latest column:
Another worry is that, as a medium, the blog does not value well-crafted writing. Except for Mark Steyn and James Lileks, it’s hard to pick out even three beautiful writers from the millions of bloggers.
Really, Howie, when you print stuff like that — even if you lay it off on someone else — how are we suppose to resist?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you didn’t know any better so you couldn’t counter Mr. Last’s contention. But there are so many wonderfully talented writers in the liberal blogosphere, I have to say it is one of our greatest strengths. I’ll be happy to introduce you to one of my favorites, Roger Ailes, who writes with such rapier-witted accuracy it’s quite breathtaking. It’s a little gift from me to you Howie, ‘kay?
Dear Howard Kurtz,
I look forward to your endless stream of chin-pulling articles and teevee appearances explaining how the hiring of unqualified conservatives is harming the Washington Post and the newspaper industry in general.
Please be sure to prattle on incessantly about "the perception, at least, of a double standard" at the Post for hiring a plainly unqualified white man.
Ask whether Mr. Domenech was an "affirmative-action hire" every chance you get.
These matters demand your full attention.
For the next three weeks, minimum.
Whore’s Your Daddy
Kurtz was spouting the party lie that J.D.G. quit the White House press cwhore because of disclosure of "personal details." Worse, Kurtz was a simpering stenographer who took the word of a man he already knew to be a liar.
Kurtz on CNN:
Now, that question, Wolf, kind of put a target on Jeff Gannon’s back. A lot of liberal bloggers began digging into his background. In the last 24 hours, they’ve exposed his real name. They’ve raised questions about some sexually provocative Web addresses that he registered on one of his companies, but never actually did anything with.
Oh really, Howie? Never did anything with them. How did you come to that conclusion?
But what precipitated his resignation is that he says that on behalf — out of concern for his family — and he told me last week that he had been threatened, that he had been stalked — this has gotten so personal that he felt he needed to step down as the White House correspondent for Talon News.
And your evidence for those assertions is?
In his Post chit-chat:
But there is no question that he resigned because of the personal information that was dug up on him, a tactic that even some liberal bloggers have criticized.
No question? I guess there’s no question if you unquestioningly accept the word of a confirmed liar and ignore the facts.
You’ve shown yourself to be a gullible fool or, worse, a deliberate liar. Resign now, Kurtz, and spare yourself further embarrassment.
Are you laughing yet Howie? ‘Cos I’m rolling on the floor.
First off, why do the media whores like Howie always get someone like Jarvis or Sully or Instacracker or some other right-wing twat to appear on these stories? That’s not a rhetorical question. The answer is because Howie doesn’t want anyone who’s going to challenge his lies.
The Putz’s lowest blow is accusing Atrios and Kos of going after Guckert on "personal stuff." What personal stuff is that? The guy’s real name? The fact that he registered gay escort/porn domain names. Those are public records and business information, having nothing to do with Guckert’s "personal" life. Of course, the Putz doesn’t identify the "personal stuff," because he can’t.
The Putz doesn’t mention anything about Guckert’s press-release plagiarism (perhaps Guckert’s not dusky enough for Howie to care) or that he was a recipient of White House smears against Joseph Wilson.
Finally, why is Putzie so sure that it was "personal stuff" that drove Guckert to "resign." First of all, the personal stuff was out there before he resigned, so how could it cause him to resign? More significantly, the Putz seems to take Guckert’s tales at face value, which is ridiculous, given that Guckert’s entire career is premised on a bald-faced lie.
Howard Kurtz’s accusation that Atrios and Kos attacked Guckert for "personal stuff" is a lie. CNN and the Washington Post should can the Putz immediately.
Oh I know this is getting long but sorry, once I get going in the Roger Ailes archives I just can’t help myself.
Howie the Putz is practically begging for a job at Faux News. On last weekend’s "Reliable Sources," the lead topic was "Are Media [sic] Ganging Up on Michael Moore?" The panel of truthists: Spikey Isikoff, who got busted lying about the Moore movie in Newstweak (not mentioned on the show), Chris "I Believe Ahmad" Snitchens, the Putz himself and Bill Press, who repeatedly flogged the "Moore the left’s Rush Limbaugh" argument. Impeccable balance and the answer to Kurtz’s question.
And here’s the Putz’s own stab at objectivity:
KURTZ: I got [sic] to jump in here. First of all, I want to mention my pet peeve, which is the film opens with a suggestion that Bush stole the election, and Moore says that few people know that Bush’s cousin at Fox News helped call the election for the president. "Washington Post," November 14, 2000, by Howard Kurtz, "Bush Cousin Made Florida Vote Call" for Fox News. So much for that….
You see, it can’t be true that few Americans knew about Ellis’s relationship to Bush and position at FOX, because that would mean few Americans read Howie’s shitty column.
Howie Kurtz: Reliable hackery.
And on the heels of Hurricane Katrina, on September 01, 2005:
You’ve got to wonder if Howie the Putz Kurtz is embarrassed that the Washington Post left up this bit of snivelling during his month-long — and running — vacation in August:
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 29, 2005; 9:00 AM
Note: Howard Kurtz is currently on vacation.
I had no electricity Wednesday night.
Neither, apparently, did 149,999 other people in the Washington area.
What happened to plunge the nation’s capital into sweltering darkness? It rained.
This is a common summertime occurrence. Then some trees and branches fall and knock down the wires. And then you have no power.
Which, I can tell you, makes it difficult to blog.
And to sleep, after a 98-degree day.
The local utility, which does a lousy job of dealing with such matters — thousands of homes may not get power back until tonight — always promises to do better, but never does. Once a summer hurricane knocked out power to much of the area for a week. Terrorists couldn’t pull that off in their dreams.
I hope the Red Cross has airlifted supplies to the Putz by now. And that the power company has been invaded and its leaders executed.
And from May 24, 2004 , regarding the hand job interview given to Tim Russert:
Some of the tough questions Howie failed to ask Pumpkinhead were: Why were you subpoenaed by the grand jury in the Plame investigation, and what do you know about the leaks? Why did you throw a tantrum when you ran overtime in the Powell interview? Why haven’t you, in your coverage of the Iraq War, ever mentioned the NBC stringer who claims he was physically beaten by American soldiers? How do you justify NBC promoting your lame-ass book in its news programs? And why I am allowing you to use me to promote your lame-ass book?
Howie Can’t Write
What exactly does this statement by Howie Kurtz mean:
"Sure, the press is drawn to McCain because he’s a maverick, which means he often disagrees with his party (but not for ideological reasons, since his positions on abortion, gun control and other social issues are generally to the left of the press corps)."
So, uh, McCain often disagrees with his party for non-ideological reasons? What does he disagree with the party about, the theme for the RNC homecoming dance?
And, uh, McCain is to the left of the "press corps" on abortion and gun control? Even if we (stupidly) assume thaat the press corps speaks with one voice on social issues, does McCain’s anti-abortion position place him to the left of the press corps? Is McCain’s support for modest gun regulation to the left of the corps? Is Howie saying the corps is rabidly anti-abortion and for no gun laws whatsoever?
I would guess Howie meant to write:
"Sure, the press is drawn to McCain because he’s a maverick, which means he often disagrees with his party. But the press is not drawn to McCain for ideological reasons, since his positions on abortion, gun control and other social issues are generally to the right of the press corps."
Which is a whole ‘nother crock of shit.
Put "learn to write logically and coherently" on your to-do list, Howie.
More On Howie
Surprisingly, in today’s online "chat," Howie Kurtz chose not to use my question as to whether the buzz Brit Hume was recieving came from Karl Rove’s vibrator. Not surprisingly, Kurtz again revealed what a whore he is. A questioner wrote:
Allegany [sic], N.Y.: Enjoyed today’s column. The blind piece from Brit Hume grabbed my interest most. Did he claim to have specific sources on his assertion about Gov. Richardson or was he putting forward idle gossip, engaing in speculation or just making something up?
washingtonpost.com: Toss-Up Time (washingtonpost.com. May 3)
Howard Kurtz: I don’t know. It certainly sounded like he knows something that he feels he can’t, possibly because it’s unconfirmed, repeat on the air. So he’s doing it without quite doing it.
Yes, that’s right. Howie doesn’t know whether Hume’s just making something up. It sounds like Hume knows something — something that’s unconfirmed. For the Putz, that’s good enough to print.
Later, someone else calls the Putz on his gutter tactics!
"So he’s doing it without quite doing it. ": What Brit Hume has managed to do, in my opinion, is to smear Gov. Richardson without being brave enough to actually say so. Faux News, indeed.
Howard Kurtz: Well, I don’t know what he was referring to. It reminds me of some of the early ’92 whispering that went on about Clinton having a zipper problem — about which we later learned a lot more. We’ll have to see whether anything comes out about Richardson, who insists he wants to remain as governor.
Yes, I still don’t know what Hume was talking about, but there once was a rumor about a politician which turned out to be true, so I may, with a clear conscience, smear Richardson by innuendo. Oh, and Clinton’s cock!
Yes I know it’s getting long, but we’re having such a good time let’s keep going, shall we? Roger also deals with the eloquent Mark Steyn here, from February 11, 2004:
Regular readers of Roger Ailes undoubtedly are sick of my tirades against Howard Kurtz and his whorish "media column." But before I give it a rest, I feel compelled to point out that today’s Media Notes Extra is particularly grotesque.
Howie’s column isn’t really about the media at all, but rather a selective rehash of a ten-month-old Boston Globe series on John Kerry. He starts out inauspiciously:
The Boston Globe revisited the era in its seven-part series on the Massachusetts senator last year, and I’ve slogged through it again so you don’t have to. The series also casts a slightly different light on Kerry’s Vietnam heroics.
And you can’t slog through it, Howie fails to provide a link.
While Howie claims the series "casts a different light on Kerry’s Vietnam heroics," he mainly avoids the part of the series which actually addresses Kerry’s time in Vietnam and, with one exception, quotes entirely from Part 3, which addresses Kerry’s activities in the United States after serving after Vietnam. Howie cites cheap shots from Tricky Dick and his criminal crew: Charles Colson, H.R. Halderman and Spiro Agnew.
Most offensively, Kurtz claims that "Kerry had testified that some U.S. soldiers had raped, mutilated and randomly shot at civilians, shot cattle and dogs for fun and otherwise behaved abominably." This lie — which has been repeated by lowlifes like Mark "Shite" Steyn and Sean Hannity — has been exposed by bloggers Scoobie Davis, who quotes what Kerry actually said. On this point, it must be said that the Boston Globe article is no better, misquoting Kerry as well. But Kurtz doesn’t mind repeating a smear if he can attribute it to someone else, including convicted criminals like Colson and admitted felons like Agnew.
Impressed yet with the passion, the wit, the eloquence of Mr. Ailes yet? I knew you would be, Howie. But wait, there’s more. From June 30, 2003:
Santa Cruz Sentinel vs. the Washington Post
CofI Kurtz is astounded that a paper would forthrightly correct its errors and hold the offending reporter responsible. Howie writes:
The Santa Cruz, Calif., Sentinel has run an astounding three front-page corrections on a story about local nonprofit agencies, which erred on details of loans, audits, deficits and even a photo caption. "We were not quick enough in detailing what the errors were and what the truth was," writes Editor Tom Honig, who has accepted the resignation of reporter Jeanene Harlick.
And the corrections were made within in a week! In an article written by the managing editor, not the original reporter! And without blaming the coastal fog! Thank God that’s not how we do things here, Howie must be thinking.
And my personal favorite, sure to be near and dear to the hearts of FDL readers, where Howie takes a swing at "activist prosecutor" Patrick Fitzgerald:
Howie the Putz, Apologist For Power
Administration apologist Howie "the Putz" Kurtz is bashing United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald for his efforts to prosecute suspected criminals:
New York, N.Y.: Can you please help me understand why reporters on the periphery of the investigation into the release of the CIA agent’s name have been forced to testify but Bob Novak, the releaser of the name, has not? Haven’t the courts ruled that, in cases involving violations of the law, reporters do not have a right to withhold their sources?
Howard Kurtz: We don’t even know whether Novak has been subpoenaed, because he won’t say. It is distressing, from a First Amendment point of view, to see other journalists who didn’t out Valerie Plame as a CIA operative dragged into this, but we seem to have an activist prosecutor who is not taking a last-resort approach to demanding reporters’ testimony with the threat of jail if they don’t comply.
Where to begin?
"Activist prosecutor?" Fitzgerald was charged by the Justice Department to investigate the Plame leak, after the CIA requested an investigation. Fitzgerald didn’t define the scope of his authority, nor has he sought to expand it.
I don’t recall the Putz ever using the term activist prosecutor to describe Ken Starr, to whom the term could be properly applied.
"Not taking a last-resort approach"? Howie doesn’t (and can’t) name a single person with relevant knowledge who Fitzgerald has failed to interview before subpoenaing journalists.
Is the Putz criticizing Fitzgerald for subpoenaing Novak before others? But Howie claims he doesn’t know whether Novak has been subpoenaed. Surely the Putz wouldn’t accuse Fitzgerald of misconduct without a factual basis for such an assertion. That would run counter to everything he pretends to stand for.
I could go on. But I’m sure Howie is impressed with Roger’s abilities by now. Maybe he’d like to take a look at the work of the fabulously talented Roy Edroso or the equally talented TBogg, who read James Lileks and Mark Steyn so we don’t have to?
You can thank me later, Howie.