The Daily Jot

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

THIS JUST IN! PELOSI FEEDS SOMEONE!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

SPEAKER OF THE RICH HOUSE NANCY PELOSI IS TELLING AMERICANS THAT $600 A PERSON IS THE MOST THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO FOR THE COUNTRY IN THE MIDST OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT.

WHEN THESE REPORTERS POINTED OUT THAT OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE DONE SO MUCH MORE FOR THEIR CITIZENS, SPEAKER PELOSI BARKED, "WE FEED THEM!"

WHEN THESE REPORTERS POINTED OUT THAT THE DEAL SHE REFUSED BEFORE THE ELECTION OFFERED $1200 PER PERSON, SPEAKER PELOSI HOLLERED, "WE FEED THEM!"

"LOOK," AN EXASPERATED PELOSI FINALLY SAID, "CRUMBS ARE FOOD. THEY'RE FOOD CRUMBS. I GOT FOOD CRUMBS FOR AMERICA. YOU SHOULD ALL BE KISSING MY ASS! BESIDES 42.4% OF AMERICANS ARE OBESE -- PUT THE BASTARDS ALL ON A DIET ALREADY! I HATE AMERICANS, I HATE AMERICA! I AM NANCY DAMN PELOSI!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Rukmini Maria Callimachi -- THE NEW YORK TIMES made her a star 'journalist.' Not because of serious reporting but because of attention getting stunts. Long before she broke every ethical rule in the book by smuggling evidence and records of terrorism out of Iraq, her journalism was already problematic. The Sunnis were the first to complain on social media about her coverage which was reductive and racist. Then we learned that she was lunching with the militants (militia members) she was covering and this after two journalists contacted us to state that she was not reporting the abuses the militia was carrying out -- even when she witnessed them.

Her fellow reporters at THE TIMES also had problems with the 'star.' Eric Wemple (WASHINGTON POST) reports:

Several Times journalists who had long ago alerted their superiors to problems with Callimachi’s reporting felt that the Times’s mea culpa contained a gap: Where was the pointed acknowledgment that “Caliphate” was a wreck several years in the making? Sure, the editor’s note cited editorial breakdowns in the vetting of the podcast series. But why not admit that editors shunted aside complaints about Callimachi long before assistant managing editor Sam Dolnick approached Callimachi about making a podcast on the Islamic State?

Those journalists had reason to believe such an admission was afoot. On Thursday, top editors at the Times presided over a meeting with staffers who had worked with Callimachi over the years. Multiple sources who attended the meeting described it as a painful affair in which masthead officials acknowledged lapses in management and their subordinates blasted them for not acting on their flares.

Particularly outspoken was C.J. Chivers, a former foreign correspondent and now a staff writer for the New York Times Magazine. Chivers was among the first Times reporters to channel his worries to editors at the paper. For his presentation at the Thursday meeting, Chivers spoke from prepared remarks. He said: “Warnings were not just dead letters. They became a basis to impugn people personally and professionally.”

[. . .]

Staffers had a great deal to say. One objected that Callimachi’s work had embraced stereotypes of Muslims and that if the newspaper had treated African Americans in the same way, the Times would have much bigger problems. A staffer from the Washington bureau noted that a masthead official had warned journalists in the capital to independently verify Callimachi’s contributions to collaborative stories. Another gripe: Washington reporters were commonly hauled in at the 11th hour to buttress reporting in Callimachi’s stories. Such a scenario occurred in Chapter 6 of “Caliphate,” when three D.C. reporters were drafted to press U.S. officials on the alleged activities of Abu Huzayfah.

THE POST's Liz Sly summarizes Erik Wemple's article in the Tweet below:

New York Times staffers raised red flags about

@rcallimachi

's reporting for years before the Caliphate fiasco & were accused of "professional jealousy." Now they are furious those flags aren't being acknowledged by the