Feeding the Beast Its Steady Diet of Lurid Scandal

A while back, I published a post in which I made an epic misuse of the English language by simply leaving out some words between my brain and the keyboard, and then failing to proofread the post.

It was ugly, but I owned up to it.  Because it was ugly.

I have always understood the necessity of multiple rounds of proofreading, because frankly, my typing sucks.  The only thing that saves me is feeling in my fingers that I have hit the wrong key, and looking up at the screen to see the mistake.  The following sentence, for example, will be published without correction:

So when I read this post from Stacy McCain, it was I nthe sirit of knowing that  writers need editors to look with a fresh pair of eyes in the sam way that reportrs need editors and fact checkers to make sure a story is both accurate and newsworthy. (5 mistakes by my count)

And in that spirit, I completely agree with Stacy that the story is simply not newsworthy.  I am related to people who make some low-level noise in Democratic political circles (forget I said that – QUICKLY) and if we replace Holly Fisher with any of those people, it still wouldn’t be newsworthy.  I remember when President Kennedy’s dalliances with a Hollywood starlet were not deemed worthy of public interest; I remember when Bill Clinton’s escapades with an intern were.

All in all, I prefer the old way.  Not my business.  But times change, technology changes, the news cycle is now an insatiable 24 hour beast to be fed without ceasing, and the internet has brought citizen journalism to the lexicon.  Anyone who is interested, whether they are degreed or not, can chase a story, post it on a website, and e-mail a link to the world.

And it doesn’t matter if the story is correct or not, sourced or not, edited or not, fact-checked or not, newsworthy or not.  Because journalism has changed in the 40 years since Watergate, and on the whole, not for the better.


Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

20 thoughts on “Feeding the Beast Its Steady Diet of Lurid Scandal”

  1. I never was comfortable with the attacks on Bill for his x wives and bringing that into focus Holly is young and deployments are very hard on people, alcohol can also be a huge contributing factor and the whole part about that they were separated at the time somehow got lost in the story.

    Its not my business and I wish the young couple the very best and I think that if a prostitute and a thief and a murderer were good enough for Jesus to forgive and to love as his very own - I'll go with the big "J" on this one and all the others, yeah I'm good with that..

    Life is too short to wish unhappiness upon a couple who is trying to find it and most importantly keep it.

    1. I resemble part of that! I am a former con-man and military imposter. The fact that Jesus forgave Dismas, a thief and highwayman who robbed and killed travelers on the road to Jerusalem and told him that he would that day be in paradise with Him gives me the will to tread the hard road of reformation and redemption. I have discovered many hidden joys on that barren road and many friends who pray for me and wish me well. Some will never be anything but naysayers and I accept that as my due. There are yet others who take the wait and see attitude. I embrace those because they give me hope and a goal that is attainable. Yet others have opened their hearts to me and become true friends through the rocky and arid places. Their friendship gives me the sustenance needed to complete this life long journey.
      Many of the latter two categories frequent this blog so it is here that I shall thank you all. I deserve not your prayers and acceptance yet they are freely offered. May God bless all of you.
      Please pray for me, a sinner.

      1. I am constantly in awe of the power and grace of our Savior to change lives, Paul.

        And, from the very first days our paths crossed, and I learned of your history (courtesy of your honesty and tireless forthrightness), I have considered it an honor and a blessing to lift you up in prayer, my friend.

        God bless... always.

  2. Lots of good LOLs on the Sooper Sekrit Site if you haven't logged in lately.

  3. I do want to mention that I am deeply humbled by the prayers, good wishes and overall support I receive on a daily basis from my friends, here, at the sooper sekret site and Hogewash. I am positive that without your help, good cheer and heavenly forbearance I would have terminally stumbled long ago and fallen off the path of redemption, to become forever lost in sin.
    Thank you, each and every one of you, for your acts of kindness. May you all be blessed and find joy in unexpected places as I have.

  4. I can sort of understand WHY he published it. It seems like every time a new face hits the conservative scene they bring with them some sort of scandal that, if not forthrightly disclosed, wounds the effort. I think Charles thought he was doing right but getting it out there before those that oppose conservative thinking got their fangs in it. You can debate the wisdom of that stance and it's just my opinion on why he did it.

      1. Charles is nuts. I automatically dismiss whatever he has to say, out of hand; regardless of position, aspect or slant.

        Full disclosure, I'm not sure if I'm banned from LGF or not. I left before the purges started and haven't been back.

    1. I also see the sense of that. But I think Stacy's point in the post I linked (and it's the point I most agree with), is that beyond the apparent lack of newsworthiness, it appears to be a poorly sourced, perhaps even single-sourced story.

      In other words, as George Carlin said, "IF there's two guys in an elevator and one guy farts, everybody knows who did it."

      A good reporter never burns a source. And if this is the single sourced story that Stacy suggests it is, then that's a burned source. That source will never be useful to Johnson again, will certainly never trust him, anyway.

      And to what end? Making Holly Fisher look as fallen and imperfect as the rest of us?

      Hardly worth the cost, if you ask me.

      1. Facts were missed entirely by Johnson or omitted - which is something he is notorious for:

        1. The husband was back from deployment
        2. They were separated - in place - which means waiting to part
        3. Did this happen years ago? They have been together 10 plus years
        4. She first broke it off, then told her husband
        5. He and her are working it out, doubt seriously its going to go forward but we can hope
        6. She is not a fox news contributor
        7. She is not a tea party official
        8. She is not a celebrity - hell, I was told by twitter 2 days ago - my feed is one of the most requested - in the top 1,000 ahead of Hotair, Malkin, many others - why I don't fucking know... Gee - I'm still not a celebrity and I think Twitter needs to relook at whatever voted me in the top 1,000 - maybe bottom 1,000 maybe they had the report upside down...
        9. She is one of like 10,090,000 people to have a picture with Dana Loesch who is very personable even to her critics.
        10. When people started quoting the dear departed Andrew then you know they are full of shit - I knew him personally, long time ago for many years - I seriously cannot recall any conversations except when we were both thrown out of a talk by a French communist together - to be clear we were in the deans office together but we were not well - never mind...
        11. His Cleverly worded headline hinting that there are pictures of the incident is what got this traction - there are no pictures never were and it was a one time or two alcohol related late night event not a torrid affair spanning the eons of time...
        12. Yes she is cute - so fucking what - all girls are cute these days - ever been to a state capital - or DC - when people think its because she's cute it means - I will never get laid and I wish it was me - sick puppy syndrome
        13. Just in case you were wondering if he went all grand Schmal, I present his Latest Tweet:

        Charles C. Johnson @ChuckCJohnson
        · 18m 18 minutes ago
        I hate all politicians with the possible exception of Ted Cruz. I intend to get all of them. Help me if you can. Get behind me if you can't.

      2. Before I reply to #13 of your comment, BPO, it must be repeated: Never go full SchmalFAIL.

        Mr. Johnson found himself at a crossroad and, imnsho, took the wrong path. Whether he'll be able to recover remains to be seen. It's my understanding he has actually done some good work in the past, which is a BIG difference. Because of his prior good work, I hope he is able to learn from his mistakes, which would be another big difference.

        However, if he continues, he will certainly make himself a SchmalFAIL as certainly as the cyberstalking freakshow ruined his own reputation and made a miserable caricature out of his entire life. You know that old saying:

        If it walks like a SchmalFOOL, talks/writes like a cyberstalking freakshow, looks like a penis, and is named Bill Schmalfeldt, it must be a total failure at everything.


Comments are closed.