Tex mentioned him the other day. He's no longer employed by any reputable journalistic outlet as far as I can tell, and The Hill is 'reviewing' his earlier reports. In these intensely partisan times, that could mean that he's been publishing accurate information that defies the media's preferred narrative and that of their political allies; it could also mean that he's violated standards in a way that should be a serious concern to readers. I'm not sure which is the case, or if it's a mixture of both.
In any case, he has a blog now. If you're interested in his side of the story, that's where you can find it.
10 comments:
Solomon's essay is extensively footnoted / hyperlinked. For whatever that's worth...
It appears to me that Vindman perjured himself with his testimony. But, as I listened to his testimony as he gave it, it seemed clear to me that he was more interested in grinding his axe than he was in giving accurate testimony. The line of questioning by the Progressive-Democrats fed into that, as they had their own axes to grind on the same wheel.
That the NLMSM joins Vindman in casting opprobrium on Solomon would seem to confirm the premise of perjury. The only questionable fact is Solomon's Fact 3: it's hard to believe that anyone was alerted by anything printed in a tabloid.
Eric Hines
There is such a thing as a reputable journalistic outlet?
E Hines, it's funny you use the phrase "grinding his axe" about Vindman. A similar thought occurred to me when reading about Fiona Hill's testimony. From there I realized a lot of these testimonies sound like bureaucratic griping. I'm starting to think Festivus came early this year.
Deevs, the WSJ had somewhat related thoughts.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/diplomats-play-partisans-on-tv-11574380164
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-autocracy-of-feelings-overwhelms-america-11574379861
Eric Hines
"There is such a thing as a reputable journalistic outlet?"
Oh, certainly, among the same sort of folks for whom we are wholly disreputable sorts -- deplorables, even.
RealClearInvestigations still routinely runs his excellent stuff.
There is such a thing as a reputable journalistic outlet?
Veritas via O'Keefe.
I am still surprised he is still alive and kicking.
Of course, "journalism" schools are a different beast (of the DS).
I am also surprised that Epstein is in jail and is ready to testify on all his co conspirators and the child pedo trafficking suppliers. If I were running their little clandestine org, Epstein would have gotten "suicided" a long time ago by now.
I am surprised that Hillary Clinton is in jail after Trum became President. I was nearly absolutely sure that Trum twitter talk about draining the swamp wasn't going to be as easy as his supporters thought.
*Wakes up from dream*
Oh wait. That was a dream, wasn't it. Humans have a lot of dreams, it seems, while they act like it is real.
Whenever I read a John Solomon column, I am reminded of middle school algebra and the scribbled note I saw all too often on my exams ("correct answer, but you didn't show your work!", often followed by "-2 pts"). When I got to calculus, I had to learn to be more methodical.
Solomon generally does show his work, which leaves the reader free to look at at least *some* of his sources -- as opposed to the MSM, who revel in headlines like, "It's feared that Trump will do/say X !!!11!" (by whom? they rarely identify the terrified...), or "It's said Trump said/did/will do Y !!!!!1!" (again, by whom? "Experts" doesn't impress me).
Doesn't mean his reporting is necessarily definitive, but the argument that a journalist who actually provides the means to evaluate his reporting is somehow "a conspiracy theorist" or "already debunked" (by unnamed sources, using secret facts you're not trusted to review", you big dummy) seems... gosh, less than persuasive.
Post a Comment