2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCan Anyone Ever Truly Trust David Brock?
This article is a few months old. We know the answer. No, he cannot be trusted. Once a slimy, lying smear merchant, always a slimy, lying smear merchant.
<snip>
By the time I first encountered Brockat the February 1994 Conservative Political Action Conference, at which Paula Jones went public with sexual harassment allegations against the sitting presidenthe was gleefully reveling in his freshly minted celebrity.
Swarmed by admirers as he autographed copies of The Real Anita Hill , his best-selling book of the previous year that trashed Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomass principal accuser, Brock told me: A friend of mine said to me last night, Youre gonna be like Mick Jagger here. (Not with all the CPAC conventioneers, however: Hes in the wrong place, sniffed prominent social conservative Paul Cameron, expressing disgust at Brocks exceedingly rare status among the faithful as an out gay man. Homosexuality, Cameron added, is a dead-end lifestyle.)
<snip>
Contrary to what my patrons expected, I found no silver bullet that would stop the Clintons, Brock writes in Killing the Messenger. What I did find was a woman with a steadfast commitment to public service, a clear political vision, and a deep well of personal integrity. I couldnt write the book conservatives wanted, not without betraying the facts as I saw themand betraying myself in the process.
That, funnily enough, is a conveniently revisionist and rather unreliable account of what Brock actually wrote in his Hillary biography, which attributed the failure of her healthcare reform initiative to not just surprisingly poor judgment on her part but character flaws of a particularly dangerous and self-destructive sort.
Indeed, in an observation that could be applied to the current email scandal by Clintons present-day detractors, Brock wrote two decades ago: Hillary has failed because she never really accepted the simple truth that legal and ethical structures and standards of accountability exist not just to protect us from the ambitions of the wicked but from the hubris of the good.
<snip>
Say what you will about Brock, it would be foolish to challenge his intimate familiarity with journalism hell; by his own reckoning, he committed countless hellish sins (publishing uncorroborated rumor, fabrications, slander, and in at least one instance blackmailing a source into lying) in the service of his career in the 90s, when his vocation, as he writes today, was to get dirt into print.
One hopes, of course, that Brock has discarded all of the sleazy, lazy habits that initially made him rich and famous, but the nagging feeling that he hasnt is difficult to ignoreespecially in his sustained ad hominem attacks on Carolyn Ryan, until recently the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times (she has returned to Manhattan to run the papers political coverage).
<snip>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/18/can-anyone-ever-truly-trust-david-brock.html
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)Pretty much revealed exactly why the AP constantly editorialized and attacked Obama in "news stories" under Fournier's tenure.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Thanks for the invaluable information.
DeltaLitProf
(769 posts). . . when David Brock was a major hero around these parts. He'd turned on his former employers and brought a lot of revelations with him about how they operate. His book about his experience was considered obligatory reading for DUers in 2002. Then he started Media Matters and drove Bill O'Reilly up the wall, constantly exposing the man as a liar. He has not let up on that. And he's been doing all kinds of good this entire century so far.
Then he goes and makes a decision on which Democrat he wants to favor in the primary. The woman he had originally been turned loose on to get dirt . . . but could find none of note.
And now he's an enemy again.
I'll say this: both Hillary and Bernie are terrific candidates who I can't wait to see take on the Republican monster they throw at us. Hillary's a pragmatist who has mixed it up with the worst of the worst. Bernie's an idealist who'll start from the highest bargaining position but has said he is open to compromise. To have these candidates running is GOOD news. A GOOD problem to have.
I truly don't understand you all or nothing types.
cali
(114,904 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)He is wrong again. I don't give anyone a pass just because they were correct at a point of time or on an issue. When they are wrong, we should call them on it. He learned once, maybe he can learn again. If so, I'll give him credit for it. Until then, meh.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)conservatism by joining their infiltration of the Democratic Party.
DINOs on steroids.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Why spend so much energy fighting from the outside when you can infiltrate and destroy from the inside!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)sums him up.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)He might have changed his behavior, but you can't change the kind of person you are. I wouldn't trust anybody who could knowingly do what he did to Anita Hill.