Great Moments In Journihilism*: David Brooks Pulls a McCarthy

This weekend's crime against journalism is brought to you by Mr. David Brooks.

Mr. Brooks is a journalist in the employ of the New York Times who also frequently appears as an honored guest on PBS, NPR and Meet the Press. He also teaches Humility at Yale University and lectures at various think tanks around the world on the importance of humility and good character.

Friday, while on The News Hour mocking the affable, cow-dumb callowness of Kevin McCarthy, Mr. Brooks boldly pulled a rather spectacular McCarthy himself (a "McCarthy" hereafter is defined as when a Member of the Tribe That Rubs Shit In It's Hair spills some horrible secret of the Temple in front of an open microphone and is too institutionally inbred to realize that they just said something awful.)

Mr. Brooks shows his ass McCarthy-fashion at around the 5:50 mark in the video above. For those of you who have better sense that to waste a moment of you life watching this idiot, here's the transcript (emphasis added):

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s talk about something, big news that happened a week ago today, and that was Speaker John Boehner announcing he’s stepping down.

David, it’s been assumed that the majority leader, his number two, Kevin McCarthy, had a lock on this, but then he did an interview this week where he said flat out that the investigation by Republicans into Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi incident was politically motivated, that you could measure the success of it by her dropping poll numbers.

What does it say about him as a prospective speaker?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

Well, there are a couple of things we know about him. First, he’s a very social guy, a very friendly guy. I still think he has a lock on it because he’s so likable. And these races tend to be very personal.

Second, he’s not anybody’s idea of a ideological firebrand. He’s not particularly philosophical. He’s social. He’s a nice guy. He’s a good political creature. And so a lot of people are wondering, will he be ideological enough? Because he’s not particularly — that’s not in his nature.

And, third, he’s not used to being near the top job. And he said something true and stupid, which was true, that the attack, the investigation into the Democratic nominee, potential nominee, is a political act and they’re trying to bring her down. Of course. But you’re not supposed to say that.

And, third, he is an embodiment of what’s wrong with Washington with that statement, which is the gap between campaigning and governing, which used to be something that was honorably upheld, has now been erased. And so governing is the same as campaigning, or, actually, more precisely, campaigning is everything.

And so congressional investigations have become political tools.

The deliberate Beltway elisions -- that reflexive conflation of the despicable things Republicans do when they their hands on real power with "what’s wrong with Washington" -- is to be expected, That just Mr. Brooks where he is almost all of the time; on Both Siderist autopilot. 

No, the real gem is his eye-rolling dismissal of the revelation that the BenghaaaazEmail kabuki was every bit the politically motivated witch-hunt that Liberals have always said it was.

If I were Mr. Brooks' editor, I would want him in my office five minutes after the show aired and I would want him to explain to me in very small words how it was possible that he, as a paid journalist, was obviously aware of the fact that the Republican Party was using a congressional investigation as nothing more than a political bludgeon to destroy a Democratic candidate for president, but it never occurred to him to do any, y'know, actual journalism stuff with that information,  

Never asked any questions.  

Never tapped even one of that army of secret sources with whom you are so chummy for something on background.  

Never filed a single story,  

Never took all that you already knew and went on, say, The News Hour to speculate as freely about this incredibly important story as you have about every other fucking subject under the political sun,  

Never did any reporting.  

And then I realized that no editor would ever ask Mr. Brooks any such questions because Mr. Brooks doesn't have editors.

Mr. Brooks only has enablers, financiers and co-conspirators.

*Not a term I invented, but definitely one I endorse.