This is without doubt one of the more enlightening articles in months, and it addresses our friends in the MSM, and why they are Entitled to the highest status in the Land of the Free.

If anyone in the MSM has trouble understanding why they are beginning to be hated as much, if not more, than lawyers, politicians, and child molestors, all they have to do is read this serious, and tongue-in-cheek, article by Tony Blankley.

And to make things worse for them, it now is obvious that the MSM is rooting for the wounded individual to "die", so as to entertain the prospect that Cheney would be charged for homicide OR Manslaughter. Most Americans, who are paying attention to the MSM are showing via polls, that they are surprised and turned off by them and their antics.

It is simply amazing that these "so called" intelligent individuals are not aware of just what they are doing to their own profession. It is simply amazing the degree of intellectual laziness that can come out of one profession.

Now, what is David Gregory's excuse?

The shooting party

By Tony Blankley

Feb 15, 2006

In the absence of any pressing news these days -- other than Iran's nuclear weapons development crisis, the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to the New York Times, Mexican military incursions across our southern border, the Iraqi crisis, Congress's refusal to deal with the developing financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare, inter alia -- the White House press corp has exploded in righteous fury over the question of the vice president's little shooting party last weekend.

As I understand the profound concern of the ever-alert White House reporters, they smell a constitutional crisis because the shooting party failed to alert the media of the accidental shooting down in Corpus Christi, Texas. Well, actually, they did alert the Corpus Christi media -- but that didn't count. Unless the exalted ones have been formally informed by an official government press secretary, no public communication has technically occurred.

I checked the bylaws of the White House press corp, and they are right. It seems that the bylaws refer to Article XXIII of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly designates that White House reporters with a minimum annual income of $375,000 (plus minimum stock options equal to not less than two-thirds their yearly salary, plus use of driver and long sedan during business hours, of which hours must include post-deadline dinner engagements of a semi-social nature) are the exclusive recipients of all government information.

If information isn't hand-delivered in gilt-edged paper to them while they are reclined on their chaise lounges, it hasn't been released to the public. And if they don't report a fact, it hasn't happened. This provision is vital to a vigorous and independent free press. [I should note, my copy of the Constitution must be outdated, because it doesn't have an Article XXIII.]

Of course, this provision technically makes the White House press corp not reporters, but receivers -- sort of glorified shipping clerks, but with the prerogative to re-write and re-package the material before they deliver it to the public.

When an out-of-town newspaper got the scoop, the dignity of the White House press corp had been impeached, so they threw a public temper tantrum. As that has worked for many of them since their early childhood, they obviously expect it to work while on the job -- to use the term loosely.

To add to their indignity, the reporter for the Washington Post went on MSNBC dressed up in a hunting costume to ridicule the vice president. (It is said that the enfeebled and debased French dauphin, Charles VII, dressed in women's clothing to hide from Joan of Arc, who was trying to save France.)

I suppose most of us, as we rise in life, develop a sense of entitlement and pompous dignity. Doubtless we all think we are more important than we are. As Charles De Gaulle once sardonically observed, "The graveyards are full of indispensable men."

But the Washington press corp, and particularly the White House press corp, has developed, as an institution, a grossly dilated view of itself. Most of us can tolerate arrogance if it is accompanied by extraordinary capacity and virtuosity. The brilliant scientist, the war-winning general, the great artists are entitled to their pride.

But the hallmark of the Washington Press corp these days is mediocrity, groupthink, a lack of curiosity and rampant careerism. These attributes were all on show in the shooting party incident. But this is just a trivial incident -- except for the poor, shot gentleman who suffered a heart attack, may he recover fully and quickly.

We live at a moment of revolutionary change in the international order. The rise and violence of radical, possibly caliphate-forming Islam and the huge, culture-changing, unexamined consequences of rampant globalization make the present one of the least predictable moments to be alive.

Both government officials and citizens are in desperate need of a national press corp that is alive to the change and digging to find factual hints of the near future. We need the kind of future-oriented intellectual vigor, curiosity and genuine iconoclasm that typified American reporters in the first half of the last century.

Instead, as the shooting party incident exemplified, we have in the White House at the most elite level of American journalism, self-absorbed, self-important men and women who stand on their prerogatives even over marginal and inconsequential matters.

Should they ever have a truly daring, creative, productive, hard-researched idea about what is going on in this dangerous world, they should alert the media.

Rampant careerism is the problem in my opinion.

I recentely read a book by Leslie Stahl, which gave considerable insight into how their minds work. It's an old book, but most of the book was on how she did/did not get along with collegues and bosses and the result on her career. To me, that seemed to be her main concern.

Here is the latest Childishness, in typical Richard Gregory style, emitting from the outraged MSM. Now FNC is the co-conspirator, what ever that means. Check this out. Obviously, hell hath no REAL fury, like an MSM journalist scorned.

I wonder what a poll will show as to how the knowledgable man on the street thinks of this "romper room" activity?

Critics slam Cheney's interview choice
- Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, February 16, 2006


New York -- For days, the White House news corps has pounded the Bush administration, demanding to learn more about Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion Saturday.

Cheney finally addressed the incident Wednesday, but the forum in which he chose to do so -- in an exclusive interview with Fox News host Brit Hume -- quickly became another source of contention.

Fox News executives cast the scoop as the result of persistence and the growing clout of the top-rated cable news network.

"We've been after the vice president since Sunday, as everyone has, and our efforts paid off," said John Moody, Fox's senior vice president for news editorial. "I think he wanted to make sure he got a fair interview and a good interview -- good in the sense of thorough -- and Brit is sort of the pre-eminent journalist in Washington right now."

But some Democrats and competing broadcasters charged that Cheney chose to speak only with Fox News because of a perception that the cable channel is sympathetic to the Republican administration. They called for the vice president to hold a news conference with the rest of the media.

"Now that he feels forced to talk, he wants to restrict the discussion to a friendly news outlet, guaranteeing no hard questions from the press corps," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said in a statement.

On CNN, commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the Fox network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."

The interview came after days of sniping between the White House news corps and White House press secretary Scott McClellan over why news of the hunting accident wasn't released earlier to the national media. Supporters of Cheney called it a nonissue that was only of interest to the media itself.

Although Fox News is known for its outspoken conservative commentators, network officials reject the idea that partisanship creeps into its coverage.

"What we try to do is not shut out any points of view," Moody said.

Cheney "wouldn't have come to Brit Hume if he wanted a softball interview," he added, calling the criticism sour grapes. Fox News sought to make the most of its exclusive on Wednesday, airing excerpts of the interview throughout the afternoon. During an appearance on "Studio B With Shepard Smith," Hume previewed the highlights of Cheney's comments, even as he questioned whether the public was as upset as the White House news corps about the administration's handling of the incident.

"If my e-mail is any guide, and the things I'm hearing from just people in the street that you talk to and people that you know, I don't think much of the nation feels particularly deprived that they found out about this on Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening instead of Saturday night or Sunday morning," Hume said.

Here is how the MSM views Cheney

Temper tanrums of the spoiled and self-centered.

They would have no jobs if they aren't the first to dribble out the news to the rest of the world from their spoons. With the MSM's prospects shrinking slowly on a daily basis, where would they get a new job? Without a huge paycut? Nowhere.

Could they even get a job?

Even Dr Thomas Sowell, has his level headed take on this Rebellion of the Adolescent Journalist Circus.

Spoiled Brat Media
by Thomas Sowell (February 16, 2006)

Article website address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=4569
Summary: The first revolt of the American colonists against their British rulers was immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson as "the shot heard round the world." Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident has now become the shot heard round the Beltway.

[CapMag.com]

The first revolt of the American colonists against their British rulers was immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson as "the shot heard round the world." Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident has now become the shot heard round the Beltway.

The accidental shooting of Harry Whittington, while he was on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney, has nothing to do with government policy or the Vice President's official duties but the mainstream media have gone ballistic over it nevertheless.

They are also angry that the news was not given to them more quickly, which prevented it from becoming the feeding frenzy of the Sunday television talk shows. Whether this delay was deliberate or otherwise, it is being called a "cover-up" in the media, as if there were some crime to cover up.

NBC White House correspondent David Gregory was shouting at White House press secretary Scott McClellan, as if Mr. Gregory's Constitutional rights were being violated. It was a classic example of a special interest demanding special privileges -- as if they were rights.

There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says that the media have a right to be in the White House at all, much less to have press conferences.

This has become a customary courtesy over the years, but courtesy is a two-way street, except for those in the media who act like spoiled brats, as if they have some inherent right to whatever serves their institutional, career, or ideological purposes.

The media love to wrap themselves in the mantle of "the public's right to know" but there is no such dedication to that right when it goes against the journalists' own prejudices.

The public's right to know what a "partial birth abortion" is has been consistently disregarded for years by whole networks, even when they have given wide coverage to abortion controversies. Whatever your position on abortions, you need to know what you are talking about but the media recognize no such "right to know."

If you knew, you might not agree with them.

The same journalists who used phony documents to attack President Bush's military service recognize no "right to know" why Senator John Kerry's honorable discharge is dated long after his service was over and during the Carter administration, when less than honorable discharges were allowed to be upgraded to honorable.

The "public's right to know" apparently extends only to such things as will not cause the public to reach conclusions different from those of the liberal media.

My favorite press secretary was Margaret Tutwiler, who treated reporters like misbehaving little boys, which is how they often acted. Nor were the reporters' antics due solely to personal boorishness.

They had before them the example of Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson, who reached the big time on TV by being snotty to Presidents. At the very least, White House correspondents can get more time on the tube by waxing indignant at what they choose to portray as violations of "the public's right to know" while the cameras are rolling.

An off-duty incident in Dick Cheney's private life has been hyped in the media as if it had some real significance for more than a quarter of a billion Americans.

The media want to know when was President Bush informed about this incident? What did the White House press secretary know and when did he know it?

The people who mattered -- doctors and local law enforcement -- were informed immediately about the hunting accident. What was President Bush supposed to do -- other than provide the media with something to print or broadcast?

The media are so full of themselves -- among other things that they are full of -- that they act as if the government exists to provide them with something to publicize. The time is long overdue to put these people in their place. Where is Margaret Tutwiler when we need her?

The New York Times informs us solemnly that, if Mr. Whittington dies, there will be a grand jury investigation.

If Mr. Whittington is so uncooperative as not to die, there will be much disappointment and frustration in Beltway media circles.

I watch to see how many twists are in their panties, have a good laugh, and then turn the channel for more entertaining entertainment, and then search the internet and listen to the radio for the news.