Friday, June 19, 2009

John Walcott: "no higher honor" than being compared to Soviet agent I. F. Stone

Earlier this week, a reader identifying him/herself as McClatchyEditor posted this about DC bureau chief John Walcott:

"Walcott is not a liberal. Far from it..."

Unfortunately, McClatchyEditor didn't offer any evidence for readers to decide whether Walcott is a liberal.

For evidence, I suggest taking a look at Walcott's own words about himself.

Walcott gave some insight about himself in 2008 after he was given the I. F. Stone Award (named for left-wing journalist I. F. Stone, who was also a Soviet agent) by the Nieman Foundation. Walcott give said this about himself:

"I can imagine no higher honor for anyone in our profession than to be compared to I.F. Stone. I do not believe that I deserve that honor, or that I've earned it, but I must confess that I'm grateful that someone, somewhere, for some reason, thinks that I do."

It's profoundly disturbing that McClatchy's DC bureau chief can think of "no higher honor" than being compared to a Soviet agent.

Below is a photo of John Walcott accepting the I. F. Stone medal. (Photo by Michael Temchine.)

Yes, I. F. Stone was a Soviet agent. (Some background on Stone's history with the KGB here.)

I emailed Bob Giles, the head of the group which hands out the annual I. F. Stone medal, to ask if the Nieman Foundation had any response to the new information confirming I. F. Stone worked as a Soviet agent. If the Nieman Foundation people have any information shedding light on Stone's history with the KGB, they are keeping it to themselves -- I got no response from Giles.



Anonymous said...

Why, in a nutshell, was our reporting different from so much other reporting? One important reason was that we sought out the dissidents, and we listened to them, instead of serving as stenographers to high-ranking officials and Iraqi exiles.

This statement told me all I need to know about this tragic waste of human flesh.

He sought out the enemy and listened to their side over that of the victims and those who prosecuted on their behalf.

This is without a doubt, the most blatant admission of open treason that I have ever witnessed an American, so called, "Journalist" ever make.

This man should have been arrested, tried and sent to prison for the rest of his natural life. Instead, his comrades openly admitted what they were doing and gave him an award in the name of another traitor.

Not liberal my foot. He is the personification of it.

Anonymous said...

Sock puppet walcott, promises that walcott is not a liberal.

In fact, far from it. He's a stone faced lying Marxist.

Anonymous said...

You guys are pathetic. If you have a specific example of where his reporting was incorrect, present your example.

Anonymous said...

I know nothing about Wolcott's personal politics. But to be fair to I.F. Stone, the allegations that he was a "Soviet Agent" are just that - allegations that remain unproven. Wiki has a fairly comprehensive rundown of the arguments on both sides of the Stone debate for anyone who is interested:

And Stone wrote this in 1956 in his newsletter:

"Whatever the consequences, I have to say what I really feel after seeing the Soviet Union and carefully studying the statements of its leading officials. This is not a good society and it is not led by honest men."

Anonymous said...

You guys are pathetic.


No you and your traitor comrades are pathetic. You openly decided to support Saddam Hussein and the Baath Socialist Party. Each and every one of you traitors deserve the same fate. A rope and a short drop with a bag on your heads.

John Altevogt said...

If memory serves, confirmation came when the KGB files were opened. Those files reinforced the allegations against a number of traitors, Stone included.

However, that's pretty much icing on the cake. How many establishment journalists simply hate America and everything it stands for without any organizational affiliation other than their jobs as journalists?

So they didn't agree with the Vietnam war. OK, But surely there must be some tyrant somewhere, some country so corrupt and despicable in its conduct that they will support American foreign policy? Nope, doesn't happen.

When you can't support American foreign policy against Islamic terrorists and tyrants like Saddam Hussein it's time to recognize that liberals simply hate America.

Anonymous said...

9:04, if you have a specific example of where his reporting was incorrect, where is it?

Anonymous said...

12:27 hey girlfriend

Anonymous said...

Liberals simply hate America?

Blah, blah, blah.

Me cry now and go buy more ammo.

Try to find longest bullets.

Make me feel like big strong man