Quote of the day—Kenneth R. Timmerman

As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts. But I recognize that the contest in November will be determined not by facts, but by faith, and by how many believers on each side come to the polls. That is the new reality of the two Americas of 2016.

Kenneth R. Timmerman
July 28, 2016
Democratic convention more about Fantasyland than America
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Kenneth R. Timmerman

    • Indeed. And he calls himself an “investigative reporter”. I suppose that explains it, actually.

  1. As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts. But…

    BUT? Investigative reporter? BUT? Committed to the facts? But?

  2. “I recognize that the contest in November will be determined not by facts, but by faith”

    If only this were the truth…..but in reality the outcome in November will almost certainly be determined by how successful the DNC et.al are at subverting, suborning, coopting and corrupting the computerized voting process to insure THEY win regardless of how the actual voting goes. The current system is essentially wide open and exposed for anyone with even minimal computing skills to infect and corrupt. The DNC is MUCH better at such processes than the GOP as they have been engaged in vote corruption and cheating for many years. The key people who program, maintain and control access to the physical voting machines have been identified and bought, blackmailed or removed and replaced.

    In 2012 Obama received 100% of the vote in many precincts in larger cities….a statistical impossibility as there is ALWAYS someone who votes for a third party in each precinct or some clown who writes in a candidate. This is proof that the system was corrupted then. It’s only going to be worse now.

    • SO, there will be those who have faith in their or their party’s ability to manipulate the system, and others who have faith that one lousy president can change generations of cultural programming, or faith in the coercive power and glory of government as a means to salvation, etc.

      I say nothing has changed. Look back thousands of years and it’s essentially the same in every respect.

  3. “As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts.”

    Wait, what?

    First, as humans, hopefully we are all investigative reporters. If on the other hand we’re talking the kind of investigative reporter that works for a media “news” outlet business, then the statement makes perfect sense in that it is a lie. No such reporter is committed to the facts, except for the purpose of making sure said facts never come to light, much the same way as a murderer is committed to his victim.

    When someone try’s to tell you he is deeply committed to you then, ask for clarification. If he says he remains committed to you after serving his prison term! there’s no longer any clarification needed. The latter is the essence of the situation between investigative reporters and the rest of us, or as I read over at The Smallest Minority a while back, “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

    It’s actually far worse than that however, because journalism is also about making up stories, and/or putting them into false contexts. A dead story is one thing, but the hideous, lashed together and reanimated corpse of a dead story, bent on mass destruction, is quite another.

    Yes, that is in fact what I believe regarding journalism, and since I’ve been committed to facts my whole life (even when not getting paid) you can rest assured that it is my true belief.

    And so it should be understood, very clearly, and never forgotten, that if you preface any conversation with “I’m a lifelong investigative reporter” then nearly anything you say after that will be either dismissed or countered. Actually you should probably not say it at all unless you plan to run very fast afterward, with a pre-planned escape route.

    Certainly do not expect such a declaration to be taken as evidence of credibility, because that expectation will be taken as one of the worst possible insults. You’ve just called me, not only a mind-numbed robot, but a mind-numbed robot with brain damage and evil intent– basically the lowest, most vile form of scum imaginable.

    Let’s see; have I made myself clear, or shall I continue, because I could go on for quite a while if necessary.

    That’s your reputation, by association I admit, but as I see it it is all up to you to redeem it. I guess that makes me a bigot, but when you have experiences with a thousand journalists and 99% of them are scum, you tend to generalize about any of those you haven’t met. Also, those minuscule few who are not scum should well understand the stereotyping in which I may be engaged.

Comments are closed.