However, this didn't preclude him from giving his opinion in regards to the effectiveness of the summit.
And none of his colleagues had the temerity to ask "if you didn't watch the summit, then how can you comment on it?" Rather they took what I thought to be an egregious error in journalistic etiquette in stride.
This little observed incident just brings into focus the fact that while all of the rage seems to be giving hell to Washington politicians, the Washington media is escaping a much deserved scathing.
Every time I switch (very briefly) to cable news, I can't help thinking that true journalism is dead. Or to turn a phrase in order to better emphasize my point, the Washington media is slowly being tortured to death due by a constant immersion into a self-sustaining cesspool populated by think-tank sycophants and trust fund babies so secure in their jobs that they don't even attempt to have the decency to disguise the brand of phony goods they are trying to sell to the American people
And let's not forget the self-important newscasters who rarely call out either of these groups on their deceptions.
The problem is not all of these folks have something to say about the state of affairs in Washington but the fact that all of them seem to have an "angle" and nothing remotely looking like the truth is contained in that angle.
I'm very serious when I ask the simple question of who can you trust to give you the uncorrupted truth about our government instead of a list of talking points and phrases which you continuously hear until you find yourself repeating them in your sleep.
And while I'm asking questions, allow me to ask a few more:
Just what constitutes a "senior policy analyst" for some organization with a fancy sounding name - an organization which very few Americans have heard of but seem to have deep pockets of resources thanks to clandestine millionaires with more money than sense?
And on what grounds is there to put this same "senior policy analyst" on a show repeatedly even if the powers that be who book the show know that the self-same analyst is not going to be objective in his or her commentary?
Or in the case of Bill Kristol, going to be staggeringly inaccurate and biased.
And how can we trust political books which place high on the New York Times bestseller list when we know that they have been bought in bulk copies simply to drive up their ratings? And what's more, how is it that more noise isn't made about this ridiculous practice?
Americans seem to have a justifiable problem with Washington politicians and the lobbyists bending their ears for influence. But our anger isn't going far enough. We really need to take a critical look and ask even more critical questions about the pundits and think tanks and especially news entities which are supposed to be giving us the truth about the Washington politicians and the lobbyists. Because from where I stand, they are a major part of the problem.
And I have one more question.
Is there any way we can resurrect Edward R. Murrow?