As NewsBusters previously reported, CNN's Howard Kurtz was respectfully mentioned in last week's Tea Party-bashing episode of HBO's The Newsroom.
On Sunday's Reliable Sources, despite having called Aaron Sorkin's new series a "crackup" and a "snooze," the host was quite pleased with having his reputation used to validate a program he had previously panned (video follows with transcript and commentary):
HOWARD KURTZ: Now, I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin, and as you may recall, was not a big fan of his HBO series, "The Newsroom," which seemed filled with journalists making self-righteous speeches.
"Not a big fan?"
Kurtz totally panned the series at the Daily Beast on June 22 in a piece disaffectionately titled "Aaron Sorkin’s Cable Crackup: Why His HBO Series Is a Snooze."
I guess having your name in one of the scripts can change all that:
KURTZ: Well, I've warmed to it a little bit. And there was one speech I sort of liked as the anchor, Jeff Daniels, tries to do a more responsible newscast and drops 7 percent in the ratings. Sam Waterston, the news division chief, is defending himself against the suits, including the head of the company, Jane Fonda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM WATERSTON, ACTOR: Media Matters, Think Progress, Howard Kurtz and "The Columbia Journalism Review" all praised our coverage of the Times Square bomb!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do any of them advertise on our network?
WATERSTON: I don't believe they advertise anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: That's right, Aaron Sorkin is making it seem like I, as a media critic, have given my august stamp of approval to his brave brand of journalism on this fictional newscast. And the sad truth is, he never even consulted me, wouldn't even accept my gracious invitation to come on this program.
So how do I feel about Sorkin using my reputation to validate his "Newsroom"? Hey, it's good for the brand. Maybe you can write me into a future plot, Aaron.
Is that how cheaply Kurtz values his reputation?
One little mention in a sentence also containing two far-left George Soros-funded propaganda organizations and this media analyst is all in?
You'd think a supposedly neutral analyst would have been offended by the tremendously biased tone of the entire episode, especially as it disgracefully attacked the Tea Party and numerous elected officials affiliated with it.
It also seems Kurtz wasn't concerned with the program dishonestly mixing in fake elected officials with real ones without properly disclosing that fact.
He also appears not put off in the slightest by the character that mentioned his name having fictitiously said the day after Election Day 2010, "America just elected the most dangerous and addle-minded Congress in my lifetime.”
Nor does it seem to bother Kurtz that the co-writer of this episode thanked someone from the George Soros-funded liberal propaganda website Think Progress for contributions of "vital" research.
No, none of that apparently matters to Kurtz. He got his name mentioned on television.
You'd think since he's on television regularly, the price for his reputation would be far higher.
Should we conclude Kurtz doesn't believe his reputation is worth very much? Is it really "good for the brand" to be in any way associated with this disgraceful episode?