Media Matters is unhappy with ABC News. Very unhappy. Rather than rely on any of the junior fellows around the office, “Senior Fellow” Eric Boehlert took on the task of critiquing the network for what left wing lunatics perceived as improper use of the word “job.”
According to the article, ABC News wasn’t the only offender.
“Like the WashPost yesterday, ABC headline writers seem to not understand the meaning of the word “job.” Here’s the ABC headline in question:
The President and the Sestak Job Offer
But as the article itself clearly states, there was no “job” offer [emphasis added]:
Rep. Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat, was urged last summer to take a prestigious presidential advisory position in exchange not running against Sen. Arlen Specter in the state’s Democratic primary.
Obviously, an unpaid “advisory position” is not the same thing as a “job.” Here’s the definition of “job”:
1. A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one’s trade, occupation, or profession.
I realize it sounds better for the press to claim that the White House offered Sestak a “job.” But since that claim is not true, it might be wise for the press to stop telling that tale.”
As evidenced by this video clip at the top of this story, the poor press in question could be confused by the fact that while being asked if he accepted a “job” Rep Sestak does not correct the interviewer and say, “Oh, no. It was a prestigious Presidential advisory position.”
Perhaps Media Matters could focus its attention on words like “shill”, “journalist”, “lackey”, “pandering”, and “pertinent”.
Source: Media Matters
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (1)
As I understand it, Joe Sestak is one of the few liberal leaders that isn't wealthy. Exactly how did the Obama administration expect Sestak to pay his mortgage with this "non-job" offer? Perhaps they expected him to live off of graft and shakedown money, like other Obama cronies.