If true, what a wuss

A sympathetic blogger at getreligion.org feels sorry for Charles Gibson. She thinks he was in a tough position and had to be tough on Sarah Palin because of all the peer pressure of his colleagues in the media. Here's what she said.

"I have been reflecting on the Charles Gibson’s performance during his ABCinterview of Gov. Sarah Palin and I actually feel bad for him. Because Palin has not been as available to the press as they would have liked, he had the burden of representing the entire mainstream media establishment. And with the mainstream media admitting they are “angry” and passionate these last few weeks, that put Gibson in a very difficult position. I mean, he has to work with and socialize with these people for the rest of his life. That is an incredible amount of peer pressure and it had to have been an unbelievably difficult situation for him. I don’t think it excuses getting basic facts wrong but it’s just worth considering all the pressures he was under.

And while Gibson’s performance is getting eviscerated as unfair by many observers — and that includes the New York Times media critic and the Los Angeles Times — he’s also getting lots of support from some media friends. So I think that he probably did what he needed to do to stay in the good graces of his colleagues."

Here's my reaction to this idea. First, Charles Gibson had every right to be as tough or as easy on Sarah Palin as he felt he should be in his own professional opinion. But note that I said "in his own professional opinion."

If Charles Gibson was so much as one jot or tittle tougher or easier on Sarah Palin because of public opinion, or out of a desire to preserve his own reputation, or especially out of a desire to keep the good opinion of his "in" crowd he's not a "professional" except in the sense that he's a professional whore. If he did that he's no more professional than any contemptible little sissy on a kindergarten playground who joins in taunting a former friend because "everybody is doing it."

Not that there's anything wrong with that, at least in the thinking of much of our modern culture, especially including the glib gaggle of sniggering gigolos who make up the media.

A word about my use of "whore" and "gigolo" in the above. I used the words in their meaning as insults connoting those who sell their honor for money. I certainly intended no insult to honorable whores and gigolos who merely rent the use of their bodies. Such honorable whores are not to be confused with the thoroughly dishonorable whores who infest the media.