home

Lessons In "Journalism" From Mike Barnicle

So Media Matters pointed out that when Mike Barnicle complained about a cap on compensation for bank executives, he failed to disclose that his wife is an executive with Bank of America. Barnicle, who in the past has been brazen enough to lecture on journalism to bloggers, did not appreciate having his most recent journalistic lapse discussed:

Barnicle responds to Media Matters: "[P]eople out there with time on their hands who send me e-mails saying, you've gotta come clean ... because your wife works at Bank of America. ... I'm not getting divorced over this"

Not the point Mike. Though I do think NBC should seriously consider a journalistic divorce from Mike Barnicle. But that would require NBC to actually care about its journalism. They never have before.

Speaking for me only

< AP Lives In A World Where Inflation Is A Threat | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If you watch the video (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    you will see Mika Brzeznski prove clueless she is.

    "Let's keep spouses out of this" say Mika. Heh. Funny, she never said that about Bill Clinton's "conflicts."

    She truly is not smart.

    It is Beltway culture (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    I think Bill Clinton is the exception in this case.  I'd love to say there's a double standard, but I never seem to hear these people reporting on Tom Daschle's wife, Roy Blunt's wife, yadda yadda.  I guess they figure if they refrain from talking about those conflicts, they can rationalize a silly rule like "let's keep spouses out of this."

    Parent
    It is more than Beltway culture with Mika (none / 0) (#10)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    She really is not very smart. It is painful to watch.

    Parent
    Who's she married to? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    She's married to him (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    She's the daugher of the SoS (none / 0) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    with almost as much blood on his hands as Kissinger: the truly monstrous Z. Brzezinski.

    Parent
    Ever since the advent of (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    the MIC, the bloody hands seems to be a job requirement.

    Just ask "It's a price we're willing to pay" Albright.

    Parent

    Hey they were (none / 0) (#21)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 03:36:04 PM EST
    only dead Iraqi children, and obviously it toppled the Hussein regime right?

    Parent
    Right on the NSA; I stand by the (none / 0) (#25)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 07:09:08 PM EST
    rest. Zbig is PROUD of inviting the slaughter of millions of Afghanis---a process he instituted in order to free Eastern Europe. Besides the immorality of his plan, it led to the creation of the Islamic fundamentalist fighters who later became somewhat notorious. Perhaps you've heard of 9/11?
    Apparently you are not familiar with this part of his history, so I'll forgive you of the accusation of ignorance.
    I've never read that Z. was particularly important in the Camp David agreements---I thought Carter himself was the key negotiator.
    You may recall that Carter got the Nobel---not Zbig.


    Parent
    Read Z's epic misjudgment (none / 0) (#27)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    from 1998:

    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

    B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

    B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

    Translated from the French by Bill Blum

    Note the callous---frankly racist equation he makes, saying that a few stirred up Moslems were less important than liberating Central Europe---i.e., his homeland. He wasn't even promoting US interests, per se: no, like many crazy Eastern Europeans before him [Like Von Neumann, who advocated a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union] , he wanted to leverage US power to free his own country.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 07:42:46 PM EST
    If 9/11 was the cost of breaking up the Soviet Union, it may sound cold, but I'm perfectly fine with that.  And truthfully, I don't think I have ever heard anyone argue that freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet control was not in furtherance of U.S. interests.  I respect your right to your opinion, but I certainly disagree with it.

    Parent
    The flaw in your argument is the (none / 0) (#35)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    assumption that the war in Afghanistan caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. The USSR's economy could not sustain itself, as was evident by the late 70's. BTW, are you also ok with Z. intentionally causing a war leading to millions of deaths, to free Eastern Europe? That's also part of the price tag.
    Another thing I don't like about his remarks is the coy avoidance of responsibility. Of course his actions CAUSED the war in Afghanistan, based on any reasonable geopolitical understanding.


    Parent
    P.S. Carter did not get the Nobel (none / 0) (#26)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 07:11:50 PM EST
    for instigating the carnage in Afghanistan.
    I  have always thought Carter was overrated.
    The enormous price tag of the Camp David agreements is a key part of the current Pal/Israeli conflict---the US foreign aid enables the occupation.

    Parent
    Was there an "occupation" (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:44:25 PM EST
    prior to 1967?

    Parent
    Camp David locked the US into (none / 0) (#34)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    the huge dollar amount of aid given to Israel.
    There's no question that the occupation would be impossible without US dollars, as I'm sure you know.
    I'm sure you also approve of the occupation, based on your comments.


    Parent
    Is Campbell Brown? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    The one married to Dan Senor? She always seemed okay except on Iraq and I kept waiting for disclosure there.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    and after he left the WH, he consulted for Mitt Romney's campaign.

    Parent
    Well, David Gregory never (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Cards In 4 on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:58:03 AM EST
    mentions that his wife was an executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary for Fannie Mae until September 2008 when she bolted the company.  Somehow I would think that would be a bigger deal than Barnicle.  After all, Fannie and Freddie went down before BofA.

    I did not know that (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    and damn - these people are truly shameless aren't they?

    Of course Gregory should have disclosed that.

    Parent

    they're in up to their elbows (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by wystler on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:15:03 AM EST
    the beltway cocktail party circuit, with all the contact with those who'd be hit by a roll-back of the top-bracket tax cutting? it's just a big private club. they're protecting their buddies and back-channel confidants

    how dare the little people ...?

    Parent

    This really tells you ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    who these people represent.

    Parent
    An interesting point about this (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    is that they did notice when they got a lot of emails - at least in this case.

    I would like to know if they have received as many complaining about Mika's repeating Republican lies about the stimulus bill and the New Deal.

    Republicans have had organized campaigns to complain to the media as well as sponsors for years - at least since Clinton was in office. I have heard journalists admit this is very intimidating and makes them think that this reflects how most Americans think. Liberals don't do this kind of thing nearly as often. Clearly they did go after NBC for the sexism directed at Hillary and NBC responded by firing Tucker - but not Tweety.

    Funny. (none / 0) (#2)
    by indy in sc on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:48:16 AM EST
    I was watching Morning Joe this morning and wondering why they kept mentioning Barnicle's wife's job at BofA.  I didn't realize he'd been burned for not mentioning it before.

    Barnicle is one of the clique, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    a clubby insider for whom the rules do not apply.  "Who moi?  How dare they!"

    NBC, by all appearances, has no shame.  

    Mike Barnicle is also the (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    sexist pig who said Hillary reminded every guy of his ex waiting outside divorce court.  He was also accused of plagiarism at his job at the Boston paper for which her worked.  But he loves hanging out with the Welch gang.  You could almost see him lapping up to Welch this morning like a puppy looking for approval.  
    And of course, Jack Welch is the one that hired Matthews, Russert and a few others.  They all have summer homes up near their master, and party with the elite at his home.  And per his instructions, they all hate the Clintons.

    Parent
    history repeats (none / 0) (#29)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:13:44 PM EST
    In 1992, I remember the old joke about how George H.W. Bush reminded women of their "first husband".  No weeping and gnashing of teeth about that one.

    Parent
    Nobody talks about how he was forced to (none / 0) (#33)
    by suzieg on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:02:19 AM EST
    resign from the Boston Globe

    www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/08/19/national/main16277.shtml.

    Barnicle was forced to resign once editors suspected he made up a 1995 column about two children with cancer while he was already serving a suspension for lifting material from a best-selling book by comedian George Carlin.

    snip

    The column that forced Barnicle's resignation was one in which he told the story of two children, one white and one black, who became friends in the hospital. After the black child died, Barnicle wrote, the parents of the white child gave the black child's parents $10,000.

    Barnicle claimed he got the story from a nurse on the ward, but he did not know her name. A check of hospital records showed no record of any black child dying in the month Barnicle recounted.

    Parent

    If banks (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:40:43 AM EST

    why not NPR and public television?  Jim Lehrer knocks down over $500K.  The taxpayers should not have to shell out for inflated salaries like that.

    Hey now (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    Jim Lehrer is an institution- also he didn't in large part bankrupt his employer and then coming begging for help :)

    Parent
    NPR (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    why stop at that wingnut bogie man? There's that damnable Teachers Union too. Dont forget them!

    Agree though that 500k is too much.

    Parent

    Entertainment Business (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    Not journalism.

    What Greenwald is discussing (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    is the exact same scam that the original Teflon - protected-from-on-high pos Kissinger has been working for years.

    ad hominem (none / 0) (#30)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    If you can't prove Barnacle wrong, attack his wife?  Oldest legal tactic in the book.  If he's such a fool, use his false arguments to prove him a fool.

    Clueless comment (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:22:49 PM EST
    Attacking your comment, not you.

    Parent