Saturday, April 30, 2011

Bog of columns followed Jacks story.

I suppose it was bound to happen when you're a legend in your own mind

Looking back on the bizarre combination of puff-piece for union thug Tony Golik and media blown all out of proportion over the Storro story where Brancaccio found the balance between overt campaigning for another democrat and doing everything he could to destroy a sick woman who, in aggregate, did nothing that equals the crime he's foisting off on us through his knee-pad cheerleading for the CRC (One involved a few thousand dollars... Lou's crime?  Billions.) I supposed it's bound to happen any time Brancaccio gets involved in any story... if the resulting thousands of words of self congratulation and self-promotion are any guide.

Hopefully, the democratian has a staff chiropractor to repair the frequent damage he causes his back and shoulders by patting himself on that back because of what he thinks he's done.

It's a by-product of being a boss where you have no accountability unless you step so far out of line that he gets whacked in the head with a proverbial 2X4... much like he did when he was stupid enough to telegraph his Hinton-like punch to Boger (Man, I bet that STILL stings) in advance... you become so arrogant, so self-centered, so blinded by your bias that no set of facts can sway your single-minded determination to bend the will of a community to your agenda.

So, what we have here is a story that the daily paper, the democratian, has done all it can to bury.

Hiding behind the claim of a lack of a paper trail as if that made any difference, this paper hypocritically banned speculation concerning Jacks misconduct (Yeah, *I* said it: Jacks did NOT resign because he was an alcoholic; he resigned because of what happened as a result) while not only encouraging speculation in other stories... but WRITING STORIES BECAUSE OF SPECULATION.

The double standard is as palpable as the manure odor one gets while in the vicinity of the rag.

Brancaccio did everything he could to protect Jacks, hoping that time would heal the wounds and let this guy and his party, both bridger/looters carrying the rag's agenda like Gunga Din, off the hook.

Not gonna happen.

Too few people hold the rag accountable for their journalistic failures.  Too few shine a light on their lies, distortions, manipulations.  The means are certainly available.

Would that everyone set up blogs... since they're free, and comment without restraint by democratian censorship to hold these people up to the harsh light of day.

Imagine how much more honest they'd be.

Brancaccio ignores me except to belittle and insult me.  He does that, not because what I write is in any way untrue, but because he wants to make sure that I am not taken seriously.  So, instead of taking the issues seriously, he ignores them... and has, in the past, attacked me.

That, of course, is his cowardly privilege.

So, when he or his minions print this nonsensical "hurray for me" garbage, who's there to jab a stick in their rhetorical eye by describing exactly where it's a crock of horse manure?

That leads us to Brancaccio's latest column of excuses for failing to drill down on Jacks like he would anyone else if they had an "R" after their names or was opposed to the fiscal and transportation abortion known as the CRC or, for that matter, the taxpayer-subsidized-to-the-tune-of-millions-of-dollars Pollard Hilton.

Instead of focusing on the rag's failure to engage in basic journalism, failure to interview democrat House leadership, failure to interview Jacks' legislative assistant... failure to interview Program Research staffers and failure to interview democrat legislators like the one who observed the conduct that ultimately led to Jacks' resignation... a forced resignation, I might add, we get tripe like the variety Brancaccio prints here.

This isn't top secret, kept in a safe stuff.  This is well-known, but totally ignored stuff that unlike Brancaccio's constant whining about the "lack of a paper trail" as if such a thing paralyzed him into inaction... or caused him to take the usual course when it comes to democrats or other allies, COULD be found... if a "journalist" would look.

So, what's the focus of Branaccaio's self-congratulatory pap?

Not his multiple failures on the Jacks' story, many of which have been detailed here.

But instead on the comments the story generated, oddly, again ignoring the multiple comments calling Lou out for those very failures.

That Lou believes that ANYTHING he babbled "brought the community together" just goes to show how loose the screws really are in his particular bag of hardware.

The only thing that Brancaccio has accomplished is to cement the claim that he's a leftist hack who turns on and off his journalistic responsibilities like a switch.

The rag's failures are easy to see, document and verify.  And when the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the lack of a paper trail will not save his job.

I've received many emails concerning Brancaccio's abrogation of journalistic integrity.

But one of my favorite emails came from a former local blogger who stopped writing a few years ago after getting trashed by the rag.
“I’m guessing you are surprised to hear from me but I just wanted to let you know that your comments and posts on Brancaccio's past two columns written on Rep. Jacks were right on target.

“I know that addictions can be very disruptive and what he is doing takes tremendous courage, but his failure to be forthcoming combined with Brancaccio's failure to do even basic reporting is inexcusable.”
That's the kind of crap that Brancaccio likely made up as he wrecks his own elbow patting himself on the back. 

One day, we will have media that is dedicated to the truth with the presentation of facts that they've worked tirelessly to dig up... facts unencumbered by the philosophy of the left... or the right.

One day.  But certainly not today.

And do I look forward to that... or what?

1 comment:

  1. Be sure and check out today's article Horrified husband finds himself in rodeo queen’s saga

    Of particular note in the tail is, "Many of the details Pierpont gave can’t be verified, but he did fax the couple’s marriage certificate, along with pictures of the two of them together. He also knew the names of several of her family members."