Anderson Coopr, Wolf Blitzer, Gloria Borger, John King and Andrea Mitchell: Swine from the Devil's Herd

I hae worried for some time that I am just not adquately conveying my utter contempt for today's "journalist" in this blog. I get the feeling that I am holding back, somehow, from expressing my real feelings, and that this repression of my real feelings is really unehalthy for me. That is why I was glad to turn to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the creator of "Sherlock Holmes") in my hour of need. (or words to that ffect, with the worst of them being beyond my ability to coin)


I especailly like that last phrase, directly from Sir Arthur: "swine from the Devil's herd". Can you think iof a better descritption of todya's "journalist", and it was written a hundred yeqars ago. Anderson Cooper? A swine from the Devil's herd. Wolf Blitzer? A swine from teh Devil's herd. Gloria Borger? A swine from the Devil's herd. John King? A swine from the Devil's herd. Andrea Mitchell? A swine from the Devil's herd. Chris Wallace? A swine from the Devil's herd. Neil Cavuto? A swine from teh Devil's herd. Megyn Kelly? A swine from the Devil's herd. And so on, through essentially all of teh people of the mainstream media, and of the unfair and unbalanced network .You can tell that this will be a favorite phrase of min from now on. I will be quoting this phrase from Sir Arthur a lot, since it expresses my feelings better than I have been able to express them: my feelings about the modern "journalist". Ordinarily, I would give a factual example for the people I name, but this blog has written articles on theam all (all that are expressly namedl). Threfore, if you want examples, you can read the archives of this blog (or simply keep reading this blog).


Within the last week, by the way, I finally watched the NEW "Sherlock Holmes" movie. I think it was given 3 1/2 stars. That proves two things:


1. Modern movies, and authors (modern people?) do not respect THINKING. The movie was a DISGRACE. It took the epitome of a ceberal detective, and tried to turn him into an aCTION HERO. It was a betrayal of the very thing that made Sherlock Holmes, the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle character, immortal: the celebration of THINKING. Indeed, the "Sherlock Holmes" movie was much more about SPECIAL EFFECTS than it was about thinking. Hollywood may never have fully done Sherlock Holmes justice (as the character is inherently not very cinematic), but it has done much better than this. As n ACTIOIN MOVIE, with special effects, I give the movie a rating of 59 (out of 100, where 60 is my dividing line for a movie worth seeing). As a "Sherlock Holmes" movie, I give it a rating of 5. That is why I recommend that you NEVER seee the movie, if you have not already made the mistake of doing so--elspecially if you love the Sherlock Holmes stories (as I do). I have just reread basically all of the Sherlock Holmes fiction by Sir Arthur, and you owe it to yourself to read these stories. Even after Sir Arthur brought Holmes back from the dead, the quality of the stories went UP. "The Return of Sherlock Holmes" contains some of the best stories ever written, especailly in terms of a celebration of THINKING And, despite sometimes lurid plots, there are no ral ACTION scenes. sssssThe "action" is mainly in the MIND. Too mbad the movie makers did not realize this.


2. Modern movie "critics" have no idea what they are doing. Anyone who would give "Sherlock Holmes" (the (the recent movie) 3 1/2 staqrs should not be reviewing movies. He or she should probably be a BUTCHEr, or some other type of profession not involving much use of the brain (with apologies to butchers who may correctly believe that their profession involves much more than I realize) .


It is sad that "journalism" has not advanced in 100 years--in fact, may well have deteriorated. I am aware that a "journalist" is sort of the "hero" (narrratorl) of "The Lost World". However, Sir Arthur is undoubtedly accurately expressing the low opinion in which "journaists" were held then and NOW. A hundred years later, Michael Crichton would do an even more devastating "critique" of "journalists" in "Airframe"--especially TV "journalists (although moden print "jounalists" are not any better). That was, of course, the main theme of Crichton's book, while Sir Arthur was only taking a passing shot at the reputation of "journalists". Still, it is interesting that the "profession" has been this low in the puiblic esteem for more than a hundred years. See, also, "Ace in the Hole": a Hollywood movie that gives a dead on view of l"journalism" as it alppears tobe actually practiced (rating 84, and I could be talked higher).


Do "journalists" worry that they are universally despised? Well, since I was a lawye in my former life, I am used to having that feeling myself. "Journnalists", however, should worry that they DESERVE to be despised: swine in teh Devil's herd.


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).


Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (through his characer, Professor Challenger, in "The Lost World"): "He is a journalist: a faend; a carioin eater; a swine in the Devil's herd."