Announcing the Winners of the Inaugural Walter Duranty Prize
DURANTY PRIZE WINNER by Claudia Rosett
Rosett: Good evening, and fair warning. What you are about to hear will not endear any of us to the fashion police.
Choosing the winner of the first Walter Duranty prize at first seemed daunting. As you have just heard, there were a great many richly qualified contenders. But as our prize committee worked through the entries, there was one dispatch that stood out. Not only did it exemplify the Duranty spirit, but it did so in ways so Potemkin, so self-absorbed and so extravagantly intent on peddling terror-linked dictatorship as an exercise in elegance and good taste, that we knew we had a winner.
This story was a joint accomplishment of writer and editor, so it is a shared award. The selection committee is pleased to bestow the Walter Duranty Prize for Journalistic Mendacity on reporter Joan Juliet Buck and editor Anna Wintour, for their combined feats of on-site reporting, headline packaging, impeccable timing, and fearless dismissal of the truth in Vogue magazine’s astounding March 2011 cover story: “Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert.”
Styled as a profile of the first lady of Syria, Asma al-Assad, this article was a paragon of propaganda — a makeover of the Assad dictatorship, presenting Asma as the human face of President Bashar al-Assad’s rule: “glamorous, young and very chic.”
Reported and published on the verge of the Syrian uprising and bloody government crackdown that began early last year, in which to date more than 30,000 people have died, “Rose in the Desert” glossed over the horrific realities of Syria’s despotism — which were abundantly evident even before the 2011 carnage, at least to anyone who cared to browse the reams of human rights reports and terror cases.
Instead, Vogue showcased as a breathless scoop a portrait of Syria’s ruling couple as a pair of classy and benevolent aristocrats; the kind of couple any self-respecting member of the global elite could admire and endorse without violating standards of either morality or the latest trends in Parisian footwear.
Ms. Buck, for whom Vogue obtained extraordinary access to the Assads, gushed about Asma as “the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies … breezy, conspiratorial, and fun … a thin long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement.” Ms. Buck treated her readers to visions of Asma waking at dawn to begin her charitable rounds, including her campaign urging millions of young Syrians to engage in “active citizenship.” There were vignettes of Asma flying around Syria in a French-built corporate jet, or careening through traffic behind the wheel of a plain SUV, en route to museums, schools, and orphanages, a study in “energetic grace,” deftly accessorized with little more than a necklace of Chanel agates; shoes and Syrian silk tote bag by French designer Christian Louboutin.
Then there was Asma at home, with her husband and three young children, in their thoroughly modern apartment, where Asma herself, dressed in jeans, t-shirt, and old suede stiletto boots, answers the front door, and whips up fondue for lunch. This was a presidential dwelling, as reported by Ms. Buck, where neighbors freely peered in and dropped by; a household “run on wildly democratic principles” where Asma explains: “We all vote on what we want.”
In this wildly democratic household, the dictator of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, makes his low-key entrance as “the off-duty president,” wearing jeans, playing with his children, and praising his previous profession of ophthalmology as one he chose because “there is very little blood.”
This is the husband, we learn, to whom the dazzling, urbane, London-born Asma says she is grateful, because in wooing her away from her narrow career as a banker to become the first lady of Syria, he gave her back something she had lost — the chance to experience the world around her.
So, what was that world around her? What about the Assad regime’s dynastic grip on power, maintained even in Syria’s relatively calm moments by a long record of terrorist bombings, assassinations, and brutal domestic repression? What about the jailing and torture doled out for years to Syrian dissidents who dared demand anything remotely resembling the “democratic principles” attributed to the Assad household? What about the iron rule with which the same Assad regime that bankrolled Asma’s taste for Louboutin and Chanel had beggared the Syrian people? What about the use of the medieval torture rack in Syria’s prisons, the collaboration with Iran, the terrorists bunking down in the capital, and the North Koreans testing missiles out back?
In the Duranty tradition, Ms. Buck did not completely ignore the troubling aspects of Assad’s regime. Much as Duranty in his day reported that Ukrainians, then starving to death under communist rule, had “shortages,” Ms. Buck noted that in modern Syria, the “shadow zones” were “dark and deep.” Observing that Syria, when she went there in late 2010, had a reputation as the safest country in the Middle East, Ms. Buck speculated this was “possibly” due to the pervasive state surveillance. The Assad regime’s resident terrorists she stitched into her story as a dash of color: there were Hezbollah souvenir ashtrays in the souk, and you could “spot the Hamas leadership racing through the bar of the Four Seasons.”
But all that, implied Ms. Buck, might be changing under the rule of the vibrant, open, glamorous, caring, wildly democratic, and ever-so-chic Assads.
Such an article would have been a monstrous travesty at any stage of Assad’s rule. But with remarkable timing — for which we must credit editor-in-chief Anna Wintour — Vogue packaged “A Rose in the Desert” as the cover story of its March 2011 issue. The magazine hit the stands and the story hit the internet as the uprisings of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were spreading to Syria.
With Syrians engaging in rather more active citizenship than Asma, in her charity works, apparently had in mind, the Assad regime tried to suppress the uprising by killing its own fellow citizens — shooting, shelling, jailing, torturing, and murdering even children. Unlike in Duranty’s day, thanks to modern technology it did not take long for these horrors to hit the headlines. Vogue’s paean to the Assads was abruptly exposed as one of modern journalism’s most mortally embarrassing makeovers.
With instincts worthy of the old Soviet politburo, or for that matter, the Assad dictatorship, Vogue’s initial response was neither to apologize nor to correct the record, but simply to delete the article from its web site.
Though the tale doesn’t quite end there.
Both Ms. Buck and Ms. Wintour have since recanted the article. Under some circumstances, that might have disqualified them from the Duranty Prize. But in both cases, the recanting was not so much an apology as a justification, an approach so self-involved that it meets in spades the criterion outlined by Roger Simon of “modern narcissism par excellence.”
This past June, well over a year after publishing “A Rose in the Desert,” Ms. Wintour finally released a statement that was largely about deflecting blame. Vogue, she explained, had entertained high hopes for the Assad regime, but “as the terrible events of the past year and a half unfolded in Syria, it became clear that its priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue.”
The month after that — and more than 16 months after the now infamous article — Ms. Buck finally published her own recantation of sorts. To her credit, she denounced the Assads, deplored the carnage in Syria, and tipped out a litany of damning details observed while visiting the Assads but omitted from her original article.
But to call it a full-throated apology would be inaccurate. Ms. Buck’s deepest sympathies seemed reserved for herself.
Writing in Newsweek under the headline “Mrs. Assad Duped Me: My notorious interview with Mrs. Assad, the first lady of hell,” Ms. Buck said she was initially reluctant to take on the Syria assignment, but did so at the urging of her editors at Vogue. Plus, a 2008 article in the British Conde Nast Traveller had described the “increasing hipness” of Damascus, and by 2010, Syria’s status, wrote Ms. Buck, was oscillating between “untrustworthy rogue state and new cool place.” In taking the road to Damascus, Ms. Buck was following in the footsteps of such luminaries as Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, Sting, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Francis Ford Coppola, as well as a public relations firm, Brown Lloyd James, hired by Mrs. Assad, which arranged the Vogue interview.
For the Vogue cover story that then emerged, Ms. Buck blamed everyone and everything from Vogue to the Assads to her own apparently inescapable work ethic: “I didn’t want to write this piece. But I always finished what I started.” By her account, Vogue’s editors overrode her prepublication misgivings, and then asked her not to talk about the article. Ms. Buck dutifully kept her silence until after Vogue had declined, some nine months later, to renew her contract. Cast adrift, she lamented in Newsweek that she had become a victim: “There was no way of knowing that this piece would cost me my livelihood and end the association I had had with Vogue since I was 23.”
Given Vogue’s original enthusiasm for the project, we can understand Ms. Buck’s shock when she was dropped by her long-time editors. But did she, and they, really have no clue from the get-go that their joint concoction, “A Rose in the Desert,” was a marvel of journalistic mendacity?
In sum, for their stalwart efforts first to cast Syria’s dictatorship as a fashion statement, and then to cover — or erase — their tracks in ways so self-serving that even now they continue to mislead, we congratulate the winners of the Walter Duranty Prize, Anna Wintour and Joan Juliet Buck.






The more this blogger delves into the underbelly of leftism, and its twin evil Islamism, the more she knows she is on the right (no pun intended) track.
The more yours truly reaches out to others, who know way more than she does, (specifically, Professor Louis Rene Beres, Dr Martin Sherman & Professor Paul Eidelberg)conferring with them for their patient ‘advice’, the easier it becomes, thus digging deeper into the trenches.
Not only that, but this blogger doesn’t earn a plug nickel (or shekel) for her backbreaking efforts, but it is a labor of love; protecting the principles of liberty and freedom; principles built upon Judeo Christian ethics.
Thus, when blowhards (you know who you are!) demean said foundations, pissing on them in the process, yours truly doesn’t take it lying down – she doubles down!
Hence, if any of PJM’s readers wonder, why this blogger entered the fray, look no further than this ‘award’ ceremony – as PJM’s valiant attempt to beat back the fantasists in our midst – and this too – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
Kudos on the crowning achievement!!
I’ve read that Duranty has been identified AS A KGB asset. Does this not diminish a prize in his name?
Mr. Simon, a suggestion for next years awards: expand the eligibility for the prize to persons who are not expressly writers hired by media organizations.
Example: Oliver Stone (and Showtime), for his plagiarized (from Soviet KNVD agent Carl Marzini’s “We Can Be Friends”) “Untold History of the United States” — an offense at least two orders of magnitude greater than all the BS ever told over the entire print-run of nobody-actually-reads-it Vogue — richly deserves the Duranty Award like no other.
Not to mention that stooges for Old Time Communism should be getting the preferential nod anyway.
So: expand the award to anyone who opens their yap in any medium, with preferential weight given toward the ubiquitousness of the medium (with school textbooks and television “history” series being the “heavyweight” categories) — and for pushing communist propaganda.
A suggestion for next years awards: expand the eligibility for the prize to persons who are not expressly writers hired by media organizations.
Example: Oliver Stone (and Showtime), for his plagiarized (from Soviet KNVD agent Carl Marzini’s “We Can Be Friends”) “Untold History of the United States” — an offense at least two orders of magnitude greater than all the BS ever told over the entire print-run of nobody-actually-reads-it Vogue — richly deserves the Duranty Award like no other.
Not to mention that stooges for Old Time Communism should be getting the preferential nod anyway.
So: expand the award to anyone who opens their yap in any medium, with preferential weight given toward the ubiquitousness of the medium (with school textbooks and television “history” series being the “heavyweight” categories) — and for pushing communist propaganda.
I still say there needs to be a prize called The Watermelon. The awardee would receive a half watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside, resplendent on a pile of bull manure, all plastic, of course. James Hanson should get the first one.
Check out Watts Up With That for a very long list of candidates. Most people would nominate Gore for sheer hypocrisy, but there must be at least a dozen more deserving watermelons.
Why plastic? I think the honorees deserve to get REAL bullsh*t, fresh from the bull, with their trophies. Let’s not be cheap here! Give them what they really deserve!
I hope they will start a Seasame Street/short bus version of the Duranty Award.
I hereby nominate William Rivers Pitt of TruthOut.org for it’s first award!
Congratulations to the judges of this year’s Walter Duranty Prize. One can only imagine the difficulty of choosing one winner when so many others are worthy of the award.
Perhaps for next year’s award, you might consider an additional category: “news” organizations that, as an organization, are also guilty of journalistic malpractice. If you had such a category this year you could have selected NBC for its creative editing of the Trevon Martin tape.
Of course any list of news outlets guilty of journalistic mendacity would have to include the New York Times, the “Paper of Record”…unless that record is counter to the newspaper’s progressive agenda. Just today the Paper of Record continued its’ obsession with Gov. Romney’s taxes while failing even to mention the growing scandal of Benghazi-Gate.
That alone should earn the Times at the very least a Dishonorable Mention.
Open air prison? I’ll tell you whom that wall makes an open air prison! The Jews who come to visit the tomb of their mother Rachel. You go down a corridor, kind of an extension of Jerusalem, and your eyes are greeted by – not the small solitary building with the tree that I remember both from the prayerbook pictures and my own eyes – but a fortress, there to protect the Jewish worwhippers from their “peaceful” Arab neighbors. The tree is gone.
I’ll tell you, nothing affects your prayers more than this site.
Oh, yes, the Moslems in their extreme form of “replacement theology” have decided it’s a mosque, and the UN has fully listed it.
Why did Iraeli Jews allow the Church of trhe Nativity to be defiled? Why do Israeli Jews literally SPIT on the (suicidally) naive Christians that literally support their existence? Why hasn’t the USA nuked Israel, after the deliberate attack on the US Liberty?
Duranty was a despicable fraud, that lied for the Tribe, when they deliberately hid the crimes of their co-ethnics, in Russia – where MILLIONS of Russian Christians were murdered by the Children of Abraham.
“Duranty was a despicable fraud, that lied for the Tribe, when they deliberately hid the crimes of their co-ethnics, in Russia – where MILLIONS of Russian Christians were murdered by the Children of Abraham.”
If you are trying to suggest that the Bolsheviks were all – or even predominantly – Jewish, you have a great deal of work to do to convince me. Having read literally dozens of reputable full-length books about the Bolsheviks and their many misdeeds, I am well aware that some of them were indeed Jewish in terms of their ethnic heritage. Trotsky, Zinoviev, and several others had Jewish blood. However, in all of the books I’ve ever read, I have yet to come across a single sentence to suggest that any of them were PRACTICING Jews. I have never seen any evidence that they attended synagogue, bar mitzvahed their sons, observed the Jewish holidays, or engaged in any of the other behaviours of observant Jews. The closest I have come is discovering that Molotov’s wife, Polina, who was Jewish, could speak Yiddish. But as far as I know, that is not a requirement for one to be thought Jewish and non-Jews sometimes speak Yiddish as well.
That is a mighty slender foundation upon which to erect a massive Jewish conspiracy to slaughter millions of Christians.
While there is no doubt that millions of Russians were indeed slaughtered and a great many of them were Christian, there is little doubt in my mind that the vast majority of Bolsheviks, including Trotsky, Zinoviev and the others, were ATHEISTS, even if some of them had Jewish ancestors.
To label the Bolsheviks Jewish is like calling famous atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair a “Christian” because her parents baptized her as a Presbyterian.
But the closet neo-nazi jew-hater cranks pretending to be conservatives love to keep trotting that out, don’t they?
Denise – if you are a Christian, why do you hate Jesus? After all, he was Jewish, certainly NOT Christian?
And to answer your question, Israel did not “allow” the Church of the Nativity to be “defiled” – it was the PLO that did that. And we do not “spit” on Christians at all – in fact, it’s only in Israel that Christians of the Middle East are safe to practice their religion as they like, even to hating us and speaking against us in their local churches (which, by the way, is very UNChristian, don’t you think?).
Meanwhile, Stalin murdered plenty of Jews, too, or don’t you know your Russian history? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/16/20030816-105043-6895r/?page=all (just one historical analysis of many out there)
And German Christians murdered Jews during the day and went home to sing Christmas carols at night. Shudder. Today, Germany and France and most of Europe is simply not safe for Jews, no matter whether practicing the religion or not – just having a Jewish-sounding name could be dangerous.
And it’s becoming the same in the USA… But I guess that makes you happy.
I think Jesus would be disgusted by what he would see of Christians today, MOST of whom have nothing what-so-ever to do with him, his culture or what he taught.
If you had followed news reports you would have understood that Arafat’s thugs fled into the Church of the Nativity to avoid Israeli “persecution” knowing as they did that the Christians of Europe and certain churches of America would have exploded with condemnation, fire and brimstone had the Jews entered their holy, when necessary, site.
As the Israelis eschewed defiling the Church by going in after the terrorists with guns blazing (Obama was not on the scene to display his convincing verbosity to reach an agreement), those saintly souls showed their contempt for Christianity.
As for Israelis defiling a church, what of Naim Ateek who together with Desmond Tutu supported Arafat as his thugs defiled Christian towns in the West Bank causing many of the community to emigrate from the Mafia style protection racket set up, and used them as forward positions to fire into Israeli homes in Jerusalem?
We may also ask of the defiling of Christian Churches in Lebanon
carried out by Arafat and his thugs, especially in the town of Damour in 1996 where they also defiled the Christian population and the graveyard.
Wikipedia: “Duranty was born to a prominent Protestant merchant family in largely Catholic Liverpool.”
Way to go, Denise. You are a true tin-foil Christian.
Denise’s response to the US Liberty incident (in which 34 American sailors were killed) is to ask why the US did not carry out a genocide of the Jews (and non-Jewish citizens) of Israel. This is obviously not something that any Christian (even a bad one) would say. There is no suggestion in her post that such mass killing would have been justified in response, e.g., to the attack on the USS Stark (by Iraq) or the USS Cole (al-Qaida), which no one suggests were unintentional. To Denise only Israel merits such a disproportionate response. No mention either of centuries of Christian mass murders and oppression of Jews in Russia that might have encouraged some Jews to side with revolutionary parties fighting against the Tsarist regime, or how, after the revolution, Russia’s revolutionaries returned to form and became the biggest persecutors of the Jews in Europe, second only to the Hitler regime. Therefore I conclude Denise is actually either a Muslim, Nazi or Leftist troll. I suggest other readers of PJM resist the temptation to comment on her posts in the future, other than to state the obvious in a single word: “Troll.”
spot on, uss liberty+”fog”of war=debacle…the real issue is the human tendency for extremes..uber theocratic(re:bin laden) or uber secular(re:marx)from which absolutely no good can ever be derived. all, what formerly were called “higher” religions, strived for a broad social consensus and didn’t go looking for a fight.now every tyrant uses divisiveness first and “give and take” last. when they run out of infidel’s stay tuned for the sunni/shia smack down!
Historical nitpick: Alesteir Crowley was not a Satanist.
There is some excuse for this error, since Crowley occasionally struck postures resembling Satanism for complex reasons (including a mischievous delight in shocking people). He did, for example, refer to himself as the Great Beast 666 of the Book of Revelations.
But Crowley’s stance was actually post-Christian rather than anti-Christian; he considered the Christian God and the Christian Devil equally ridiculous concepts.
Crowley’s actual world-view was a complex combination of skeptical materialist atheism (with a distinctly Nietzschean tinge) and psychological mysticism resembling and perhaps influenced by Jungianism. One of his more famous quotes conveys the flavor: “We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon; our method is Science, our aim is Religion.”
None of this excuses Duranty. Crowley attracted both the brilliant and the depraved, and Duranty (whether or not he was a follower) was undoubtedly the latter.
But when Crowley postured as a Satanist he was actually laughing at those gullible enough to believe him. If there is an afterlife, Roger, he is chuckling at you now.
Between screams?
And at you, Mr. Raymond.
Crowley was a self-indulgent, narcissistic egoist, looking for any “mark” to finance his vices. He also happened to be a brilliant writer.
Your assessment of Crowley is spot on. Bravo.
Not so complex…..The best trick/lie the devil ever pulled was convincing people he doesn’t exist.
Your spot-on comments about Crowley and how Simon mis-labeled him is an excellent example of the shallow, facile “journalism” of this whole site of which Simon is the chief cook and bottle-washer.
Oh, bollocks. Crowley was as much a Satanist as anybody else. There are few if any “true” Satanists. Satanism is just a stunt to call attention to yourself, which is what Crowley did at every turn in various ways. He played the “Satan game” probably a bit better than modern versions. If this is all you can stick Simon with, it’s pretty thin.
Thanks for making my point for me, A.N., if there are “few if any true Satanists”, why does Simon rush to use that label on Crowley other than to use it to further discredit by association Duranty? Kind of the “Obama palled around with terrorist” kind of smear because Obama was on the board of a non-profit will Bill Ayers 30 years after Ayers was involved in violent opposition to an illegal war. Typical red-meat nonsense for the rubes and yahoos.
I have many bones I could pick with Simon but too little time to waste on it. I just use this as ONE example of the sloppy, yellow journalism that Simon practices.
So Walter is the Father (with the fabulist T. E. Lawrence the grandfather) of Middle East reporting? I am referring to the well-know agreements by “journalists” to “accomodate” their reporting to the wishes of terrorists in order to stay alive, and of course the recent admission of a CNN(?) reporter that he editied his reporting to stay in the country.
But can we totally blame these poor peons? I recall a reporter on the radio bitterly castigating the executives for their cavalier attitude toward reporters’ lives. If these amoral executives throw them into the cauldron, can you blame them for trying to stay alive?
Well, that’s what you get for allowing yourself to be “forced” into taking up a particular career.
I am referring to the well-know agreements by “journalists” to “accomodate” their reporting
Ooh, and I thought you were going elaborate on JournoList.
If you called it “Watermelon,” they’d call you “Racist.”
My rejoiner would be, “We’d be racists if we called it the oreo award, but we don’t……Aren’t YOU (directing question towards libtards) the folks that call people oreos?”
Too true.
Priceless writing. Thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable column. Kudos.
Great article. Might I suggest two additions even at this late date?
1) Fareed Zakaria, who got a mere slap on the wrist for plagiarism because he has his nose firmly planted between Obamas cheeks. Lower cheeks of course.
2) Thomas Friedman, who proves that marrying for money trumps intellect when it comes to getting ahead in journalism.
Since few know of Duranty perhaps the award should be renamed The Helen Thomas Award for Journalism?
How sweet it is!
Since few know of Duranty
Maybe it is about time history is taught in the schools.
Just a mild critique but maybe you should put the winners names in bold rather than the presenters.
Anyway the Duranty Prize is a great idea and all bloggers interested in upholding truth should spread the word.
Doing my part
“…effectively making that newspaper a U.S. branch of Pravda, for a time anyway.”
That time being from 1922 to roughly, um… this morning.
That’s not really fair – to Pravda. Pravda has actually moderated its tone considerably since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mind you, I’m only able to read the English edition; I have no idea whether the Russian edition is similiarly moderate. Check it out if you like: http://english.pravda.ru.
Yes, since the fall of the Soviet Reich, Pravda has transmogrified itself into an interesting newspaper. A much better comparison of the New York Times would be to Granma, the Cuban newspaper, which remains its old self, completely untransmogrified.
– you give Sullivan the attention he has craved all his life.
I thought the (very) recent attention given to Sullivan and his supposed post debate criticism of The One™ was over the top.
From my perspective, anything AS thinks writes or says became irrelevant at least 5 years ago.
Prize for Journalistic Mendacity on reporter Joan Juliet Buck and editor Anna Wintour, for their combined feats of on-site reporting, headline packaging, impeccable timing, and fearless dismissal of the truth in Vogue magazine’s astounding March 2011 cover story: “Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert.”
Admirable when Ann Romney (reportedly) turned down an offer from Vogue/Anna Wintour to do a big deal “profile” on her.
As for Mrs. al-Assad, last I heard of her she was ordering a lot of elaborate furniture for the summer home on the internet as her husband was slaughtering Syrians in the street.
Ann Romney was probably savvy enough to know that they planned a velvet hatchet job on her.
I hereby propose the Walter Duranty award be codified in an actual solid award, as follows:
First for a base, a six-inch square of Siberian Elm, carefully sanded and varnished to a bright glow. The wood is selected both for its name, and the fact that the Siberian Elm is classified as an invasive species. Since we cannot eat this invasive species, cutting it down and using it for an award is the next best thing.
Next, on top of the base would be a golden egg, about the size of an ostrich egg, only broken in half and engraved with the quote: “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet”. To show the lack of character the Duranty award signifies, the broken egg would only be plated with metal, not made out of it, and furthermore the plating should be made of some plastic-like fake instead of real gold.
Inside the broken egg would be a scale-sized plastic human skull, with a small hole in the back, signifying the exact nature of the Soviet re-education process.
As most awards come with a cash award, this award should be presented with thirty Roosevelt dimes, holding a cash value presently of approximately $2.50 each, for a total of $75. After all, selling out for 30 pieces of silver is traditional.
Heh heh. Excellent suggestion.
On the other hand, instead of being on a pile of manure, how about a pile of bodies. Emaciated from starvation, of course.
I think it should be cheap and simple. A very smelly dead fish with their articles as wrapping.
“effectively making that newspaper a U.S. branch of Pravda, for a time anyway”
For a time? When did it change?
Go through Evelyn Waugh’s unexpurgated diaries. It will give a decade’s worth of prize winners.
to call it a full-throated apology would be inaccurate. Ms. Buck’s deepest sympathies seemed reserved for herself.
Heh-heh-heh. And Ouch!
Andrew Sullivan had a previous breakup with Obama, in Feb 2011, http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/15/andrew-sullivan-breaks-up-with-obama/
but returned to worshipping the Dear Leader.
Ten years ago, when I was “coming out” as a gay conservative –as a conservative specifically; my other coming out happened decades ago–Andrew was a real support. His decline and fall in the interim a great sadness to me.
How you can, in ANY sense, be “conservative” –or even American, at this point!– and support Barry Hussein O is beyond me.
An Idea whose time has come-at last .Many thanks to all concerned -from an old Geezer.
My nomination for 2012: Editor & Chief Bagdad Greg Moore & Bagdad Dean Singleton Publisher of The Denver Post who exemplify most recently their lack of Libya cover coverage – the threat to democracy Caddell talked of failing to protect from power and rather serving power.
BUT THERE IS ONE LARGE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POST AND THE OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
The Post, a daily monopoly in Denver, is owned by Media News. Media News went bankrupt with the monopoly Post excluded from the bankruptcy. Management remained in place (keeping a good portion of its stock). Who ever heard of management with a monopoly kept in place?
Guess who blessed this Crony Journalism deal (not that The Post is paying it back with spike suppression of the news let alone editorializing in the news):
The Department of Justice blessed this deal
And that is the distinction – and why Editor in Chief Bagdad Greg Moore, Bagdad Publisher Singleton and editorial page lackey Mother Hubbard deserved the Duranty.
You just have to love the breath-taking audacity and the mind-boggling chutzpah of a propaganda outlet like pjmedia giving out awards spotlighting propaganda in the press. Wow, to use a Biblical phrase, you truly aren’t aware of the “plank in thy own eye”, are you (Matthew 7:3-5)? But, who better to know a propagandist when they see one than another propagandist.
So, keep on showing how truly hypocritical you are, I love it (even if Jesus didn’t).
I’m thinking of giving you obi-jon a Duranty.
Richly deserved.
Hey, who knows, maybe I deserve one. Who knows what the truth is anymore in this modern, dis-information age. I’ve never before seen such blatant, right-wing propaganda parading as “journalism” in my life as what has emerged in recent years.
My point is that pjmedia, which audaciously sits in judgment of MSM journalism, has nothing like the journalistic standards that they insist other’s should have. I studied journalism and consume vast quantities of it, I know good journalism from bad, I’ve written for years, I I know what I’m talking about.
I even spend some time in the old Soviet Union and loved laughing in the face of the Intourist guide who wanted to tell me all about their “democracy”. I also laughed in the face of the Reagan-appointed American Ambassador to the Soviet Union, a propagandist on par with the best the Soviets had to offer. One very wise Russian observed to me that “at least here we know we’re being lied to”, a wonderful testament to the willingness of Americans to believe their own myths. And, there’s no more blatant example of myth-making idiocy than pjmedia.
PJM has some of the most cogent, insightful writing to be found anywhere on the internet.
Sorry you’re not sufficiently up to snuff to recognize that.
Those who comment don’t purport to be journalists, nor do the columnists.
Nothing gives individuals who go to J-school special intelligence or insight for understanding anything. So called journalists in the MSM are, by and large, tedious and highly predictable. As conformists to the lockstep, de rigueur thinking of their sect, they have abandoned their role in the maintenance of the republic and a free people.
That is nothing short of a travesty.
“I studied journalism and consume vast quantities of it, I know good journalism from bad, I’ve written for years, I I know what I’m talking about.”
Be honest – you’re a navel-gazing nobody, aren’t you?
It’s amazing how the progressive fascists attack without providing any substance to support their complaints. Their problem is that they operate based on feelings which stem from their progressive fascist religion. They can’t survive a fact based analysis of their ideology.
You realize, it’s going to get cold under that bridge very soon?
Yeah, well good luck staying warm there, Sparky.
Bums like you really ought to move to the warmer climates. I hear Texas is nice. Those red-necks loves them some hobos. Where do you think all that great BBQ comes from?
Spot on Obi. What I saw in this video with its audience of 14 is more cynical spinning which seems to be the hallmark of the presenters. Stir that muck….especially the whining, selfcongratulatory and “Aren’t I the Clever One?” presentation of the woman with the largest mouth in the business, both metaphorically and physically.
Get thee to a nunnery woman.
A “Rose in the Desert” Smells Like Shit
http://sadredearth.com/a-rose-in-the-desert-smells-like-shit/
Joan Juliet Buck’s “A Rose in the Desert” is “the creepiest, most morally repugnant journalism of the year … with photography by James Nachtwey. Might Anna Wintour and the other editors of that glossy dross, reeking
of ancien regime parfum feel more chastened now to think it … in bad taste?
Does anyone have the archives of Andrew Sullivan’s old work, when he used to be linked to by the WSJ Opinion page?
I seem to recall him being quite the supporter of GW Bushes democracy agenda in the Middle East. I distinctly recall that even after no WMD were found in Iraq, he was quite willing to rationalize the invasion as one that drew all the ME terrorists to one spot so we could deal with them there instead of on American soil.
I’d like to read over his work to find out just what it was that caused him to “evolve,” as it were. If I’m not mistaken, it was either the supposed torture of terrorists that flipped him, or the same sex marriage issue that was finally too much for him to continue his support of W. I’d appreciate any help on my little project.
“Dr. Johnson famously told us: ‘No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money’ — making a lot of bloggers blockheads, but never mind.”
I resemble that remark!
Papa Juliet sez: You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down..
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over!
Ok, I liked this piece. I hope it is an annual award. I would add Maureen Dowd and any the Nation “journalist” to the award nominees. Also I suggest the 2nd place winner be given the Molly Irwins award for jounalistic malpractice.
Obi-Jon, you’re all talk talk, where is your proof that we are what you accuse us of. Put up or shut up.
I came across a novel by Duranty in a Plymouth, MA antique store a couple of years ago. The novel was One Life One Kopek. The protagonist was a young bolshevik soldier. It was readable.
Duranty was a Stalin apparatchik to be sure, but it strains credulity to think that people such as Roosevelt, Churchill, and other luminaries didn’t know what was happening under the Soviet flag.
The leaders of the Free World had access to information about what was happening in Russia from the beginning of Lenin’s Reign of Terror. Russian emgires, defectors from the Bolsheviks, and Western spies all gave information to Western intelligence agencies. Not all of it was believed. And those who were likely to act on it in a way that was favourable to the West were not always in a position to do anything. For instance, Churchill spent much of the 1930s in the political wildeness and was unable to do much about the Soviet Union, even though he was under no illusions about what they stood for. There is considerable dispute over FDR’s role in all of this. There is considerable evidence that some of those in FDR’s administration were actively working FOR the Soviets, not against them. Those close to FDR have made it very clear that he thought he could win Stalin over by the strength of his own personality. Instead, he got played by Stalin on many occasions. The West was also quite naive about the Soviets in many regards. I well remember the words of the then-US ambassador to the Soviet Union (Joseph Davies) in Mission to Moscow who was aghast at the suggestion that the Soviets could be monitoring the embassy’s communications. He couldn’t believe the Soviets would do someting so ungentlemanly. (The Soviets were indeed monitoring embassy communications of all their adversaries.)
There were some big eye-opening moments for the West that actually succeeded in causing many supporters of the Soviets to leave their Communist Parties (and various front groups that were controlled by the Communists). The first major one was when Stalin signed the pact between Germany and the Soviet Union in August 1939. The second was when Krushchev gave his “secret” speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in 1956. The secret soon reached the other Warsaw Pact allies of the Soviets and then the West. The crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 also caused significant defections from the Communist parties.
The Soviets always had apologists in the West who would “explain” and defend what the Soviets were doing. To this day, the Communists and Fellow Travellers questioned by Joe McCarthy are widely portrayed as martyrs, even though McCarthy was subsequently proven right in many of his allegations.
In short, knowing the truth isn’t always helpful in stopping adversaries from doing evil.
I am not a wordsmith, nor do I want to be one. But I do have a slight understanding of most stuff I read, and I have to say, I find no straight news sites anywhere on the internet. All seem to have an agenda, political, religious, sheep fleecing or etcetra. I do think my understandings of journalism are probably wrong. I see magazines like Vogue as sheep fleecers, and would never look at one expecting anything that would enlighten me to anything important. Kind of like watching Oprah.
Anna Wintour and Vogue – always fascist forward…
Mr. Simon, a suggestion for next years awards: expand the eligibility for the prize to persons who are not expressly writers hired by media organizations.
Example: Oliver Stone (and Showtime), for his plagiarized (from Soviet KNVD agent Carl Marzini’s “We Can Be Friends”) “Untold History of the United States” — an offense at least two orders of magnitude greater than all the BS ever told over the entire print-run of nobody-actually-reads-it Vogue — richly deserves the Duranty Award like no other.
Not to mention that stooges for Old Time Communism should be getting the preferential nod anyway.
So: expand the award to anyone who opens their yap in any medium, with preferential weight given toward the ubiquitousness of the medium (with school textbooks and television “history” series being the “heavyweight” categories) — and for pushing communist propaganda.
Too bad about the Trayvon Martin story, and the not wanting to various outlets into one narrative, cuz the Martin story was plain sick.
The problem with liberalism is that it’s really the same old problem and we keep trying to write about it in different ways. But, for example, murder is murder and it’s wrong for the same old reasons.
Similarly, rather than presenting nuanced arguments that don’t play well, do what libs do when they pretty much just say so and so’s a racist – keep it simple, hit ‘em back with the simple truth that liberals are the single greatest institutionalized mainstream presence of racism in the world today.
A liberal’s arguments on the matter are spellbindingly contradictory to say the least.