Howard Kurtz wonders aloud about Elizabeth Smart's qualifications to be a TV pundit
Elizabeth Smart first came into our consciousness nearly a decade ago as a 14-year-old girl kidnapped from her Salt Lake City bedroom. She was found alive nine months later, some 18 miles from her home, and the man and woman who seized her were ultimately convicted.
Now The Daily Beast has learned that Smart is about to start a new job at ... ABC News.
Does that strike anyone as odd?
Just you, Howard. Just you.
Other than fame—as the victim of a horrifying crime—what exactly are her qualifications?
What are Luke Russert's, Meghan McCain's or Peter Doocy's qualifications to be pundits or work at their respective networks? None, save they are all the children of famous people. One of the trio can barely write a coherent sentence. Where's Kurtz questioning their qualifications, especially since McCain writes for the same Daily Beast that Kurtz writes for?
Kurtz goes on in the article to make a pretty flimsy case against Elizabeth Smart's hiring, about which I don't really care one way or the other, but that just brings a question to my mind: What are Howard Kurtz's qualifications to be a pundit? Who died and made him such a high rolling critic of every media outlet but whichever one he's working for at the moment?