At this point, the Globe's Christie Blatchford should simply shut the hell up, and switch desks to cover dog shows.
No one cares what you think anymore, Christie. We all understand you're a journalistic hooker, and we just don't care about the going rate.
FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE: How, exactly, can any one human being be so awesomely ignorant or deluded as to write this:
Thirdly, it would be helpful if politicians on all sides of the House remembered to make the distinction between the conduct of Canadian soldiers - who by every account behaved exactly as Canadians would want them to behave - and the detainee issue.
Yes, Christie, what a terrific suggestion -- people should be careful to separate criticism of the troops from discussion of the detainee issue. Excellent idea, Christie. I'm sure no one of any significance has twigged to that distinction.
Idiot. Complete, fucking idiot.
DOUBLE PLUS GOOD BONUS: Ti-Guy gifts us with this.
14 comments:
Wonder if she fantasizes about being 'manhandled" by people in uniform... she seems the type...
How else explain her irrational obsession with the military....
She is a casebook example of "why" journalists should never be embedded with the Army if you want neutral reporting.
Christie isn't irrelevant. She's a blight. If someone would fire her she'd be as nicely irrelevant as Kathy Shaidle.
The old bat gives me the creeps when she writes things like this:
The experience was one of the most significant of my life (if not on a par with the drama of being, say, in a budget lockup) and I treasure every minute of it. I made some lifelong friends, and I love some of these men.
I guess she didn't notice any female soldiers. There is only one queen bee among the drones when the Blatch is on the prowl.
That would be "Judith Miller" syndrome.
I came across this site the other day while googling for material Crusty-haters have churned out over the years.
Heh.
I wonder where this "separation of criticism" is with regards to our soldiers when people dare criticize the mission?
Funny how that works...
She does start off with the unvarnished truth, though.
"I am not one of those smart Ottawa reporters..."
Would that the BT's could live up to that.
I liked her better, relatively speaking, when she drank.
I agree that Christie has the wrong end of the stick on this one, but I disagree with your assessment of her.
The key to understanding Christie, I think, is that she writes about things she loves. She loves, among other things, soldiers, hockey players, old fashioned "real guys", babies, dogs, underdogs and the like. (This contrasts with at least one columnist who seems to write about things she hates. No names; no pack drill.)
I think what happened here is that she was sold a bill of goods and she bought it.
But I still remember attending a soldier's funeral years ago. It was, as liturgical occasions go, pretty bad, even comical.
CB was there, and I dreaded reading her column the next day.
I shouldn't have. She drew from that experience everything that was true and good and, without a single fabrication or lie, she reported the funeral that he *should* have had.
In the present case, Christie bought the government line. I'm pretty sure that it was sold to her on the basis that soldiers (whom she loves) were in or close to the line of fire.
But that's not quite the same as what you're saying.
Given the reporting she's done on First Nations, soldiers and other plain folks over the years, I'm prepared to forgive her for getting one wrong every decade or so.
This contrasts with at least one columnist who seems to write about things she hates. No names; no pack drill.
Margaret Wente.
At her best, Christie Blatchford is treacly, snivelling and mawkish. And really, she's just too old for that.
Jim:
It is true that, if someone has a solid history of good writing, they're allowed the occasional fuckup. This does not relate to Christie Blatchford for two obvious reasons:
1) She has a history only of worthless crap.
2) Her recent column was so hideously slanted, dishonest and a politically partisan hit piece that nobody would deserve a pass for that.
But thanks for playing.
"Given the reporting she's done on First Nations..."
Ahem. Her last series on First Nations consisted of a Globe series on how badly people were being inconvenienced by the demonstrations at Caledonia. She described in pretty purple prose the travails of one couple in court for days on end, each day illustrated with a photo of the couple looking sad and dispirited. But she managed in the entire series to avoid ANY explanation of the nature of the Mohawk claim.
Not impressed.
In the present case, Christie bought the government line.
The fact that she unquestioningly swallows everything the government tells her makes her not a journalist, but a stenographer. I don't think it's out of line to unapologetically demand better from her.
"... she reported the funeral that he *should* have had."
And she brought that same reporting to her coverage of Colvin: She reported what she thought *should have happened, in total defiance of facts we already knew.
Reality being in bad taste isn't an excuse for lying about what's actually going on.
Post a Comment