Heart of Hackness II: He said it, not me

Mickey Kaus Columnist
Font Size:

Heart of Hackness II–He Said It, Not Me: RedEye‘s Andy Levy on Newsweek/DB’s Howard Kurtz:

Here’s my theory about Howard Kurtz: He consistently gets things wrong, but then after the facts are in he’ll always write a column telling you why everything was so obvious.

Example? Kurtz’s 2008 column looking back on the Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair (in the wake of Edwards’ televised confession).  Having completely blown the story, Kurtz actually ends his post-mortem on a note of self-congratulation: “I didn’t know how right I was” (because at one point he’d wondered if Edwards’ candor was “carefully choreographed”).** … P.S.: Kurtz’s “everything was so obvious” wrap up of Weinergate should be a keeper, given his claim, days after the story broke, that the “whole thing appears to be faked. Sometimes it pays to wait for the facts”.  I guess it does! …

Update: Here’s another Daily Beast Kurtz piece that stands up … not so well!  Note the gullibility (or simple stupidity) of treating as significant the original Washington co-ed’s statement that “she has never met Weiner.” (Who said she had?) Plus the smug annoyance with “right-wing chest thumping”:

Part of the right-wing chest-thumping about this involves the false notion that the liberal media are protecting the Democrat (as opposed to the likes of Mark Sanford, David Vitter, John Ensign, Arnold Schwarzenegger—all of whom fessed up). Just like the press supposedly protected John Edwards until the National Enquirer got the goods on his mistress and love child.

Of course Kurtz himself, in his 2008 I-guessed-it-all-along post-mortem, recognized that the press had protected John Edwards until the National Enquirer got the goods.  Back then, Kurtz noted that the MSM tried only  “halfheartedly to confirm the tawdry tale” even though they assumed the Enquirer, in fact, “had the goods.”  Get it first, but first get it second! And even then, wait a while. … But it’s any weapon to hand when you’re defending  yourself and your guild against “right wing chest thumping.” ***  [via Big Journalism] … [You’ve made the Edwards point before-ed. Huh. So I have. But so has he! Earlier item was in response to this Kurtz twitter. ]


**–See conflict disclosure here and here.

***–Pushing off against the “right wing” is the signature pose of Daily Beast. It’s not clear where the magazine stands, except that they are highly vigilant when it comes to “wingnuts” of the right (convenient positioning that allows them to capture all the Palin/Bachmann/O’Donnell page views without having to actually stake out a clear liberal stand).

Mickey Kaus