Monday, April 25, 2011

I was right. Brancaccio's "interview" with Jacks was pathetic.

.
A friend sent me the article that Brancaccio pimped yesterday (Saturday) in his propaganda column as if it contained something we didn't already know.

It's didn't.

And, of course, what was particularly absent was any drill down on the specifics; questions that would nail down this issue... questions that would have brought the truth to light.

This is what we got:
Being an alcoholic is a difficult thing in and of itself. But oftentimes, having one too many also results in bad behavior.
So I asked Jacks if his drinking resulted in his doing anything inappropriate. At first he wasn’t exactly sure what I meant.
“I have no criminal record. I’ve gotten no DUIs. I’m sure I’ve driven when I should not have been driving. But I resigned because I had to fix my problem. I resigned because I’m an alcoholic.”
Still, I pressed him further. Notwithstanding the drinking while driving, is it possible that someone might show up later and say you did something inappropriate to them while you were drinking?
He said no.
The interview moved forward.

"The interview moved forward."

Codespeak for "I let him off the hook and didn't ask the questions that needed to be asked."

Questions like this:

Did you, in any way, engage in conduct that could be construed as sexual harassment of anyone?

Did you engage in “drunk calls” to anyone?

Did you engage in unwanted advances to anyone at any time generally, but legislative staffers particularly?

That Jacks never got popped for anything criminally as a result of his alcoholism doesn't mean that he did not engage in the kind of conduct that would result in his caucus wanting to get rid of him in a hurry, as quickly and as quietly as possible.  And those are not the actions on the part of a caucus that result from mere alcoholism alone.  Brancaccio knows that as well as I do.

These are the kinds of questions, based on the information readily available to Lou or any other journalist, that SHOULD have been asked.

But when you're in full democrat protection mode, and you already know the answers and you don't want those answers published... why even ask the questions?

I've been right all along.

Brancaccio doesn't know... because he doesn't want to know.

Any other genuine journalist would have asked the same questions or similar.  But not someone with a reeking left wing bias.

And you know damned well that if Jacks had been an "R", the entire interview would have centered around those questions and those questions alone.
.

3 comments:

Lew Waters said...

I know of at least 2 who have written letters to the House Executive Rules Committee about this lack of transparency, you know, that thing Democrats believe in so heartily according to Sharon Wylie and asking for any and all documents that might be available.

It's great to see there are some real journalists still around.

We could use some at the Columbian.

Just a guy said...

Well, this just goes to show that we're never going to have to worry about Lou winning a Pulitzer.

Danielle said...

Gosh, maybe the Columbia should hire you.
You definitely are doing better at investigative journalism than they are.

But then you tilt a little too far to the right for the Democratian. :)