Cooper: "The fact is, I'm gay."

Inquiring minds, and CNN top brass trying to explain the recent rating tumble, ask:

"The question is, are you a real journalist?"


To this mind, no.
He's Gloria Vanderbilt's very pretty son.  (Coming up in the days of the designer jean "wars" -- to this mind, he's the very epitome of style over substance, the route journalism has taken since the 80s, at least...)

I wonder why ... now. 
I mentioned before, the ratings are in the toilet, and they got creamed for getting the Obamacare SCOTUS news wrong originally ... is this a play for more viewers, sympathetic to gay journalists?  Or is it heading off an excuse:  much like the wagons circle around Obama, calling his critics bigots, will CNN try to use gay hatred as an excuse for why nobody watches that network anymore?

(and how does Englishman Piers Morgan fit into all of this?)

Inquiring minds want to know less about Cooper's personal preferences, and more about why our professional journalists are failing to deliver the real news in these divided times. 

Now more than ever, it needs to be about the news, not who's temporarily delivering the story... pretty faces and all.

-----------------
PLUS:  I hate to explain my references here:  either you get them or you don't.  Still...

the reference to King Solomon?  Either the Supreme Court ought to have declined to hear the case this term, letting things shake out at the ballot box and waiting to see if the next Congress might take action to repeal the law as passed, or ...

the Court should have decided solely on the issue before it:  is the Individual Mandate as written constitutional?  No -- under Commerce Clause precedent, you can't mandate purchase of such a product.

If it's a tax, it's legal, but c'mon... Let the political process do it's job.  They didn't pass this as a tax, they didn't present it as a tax, in fact, they adamantly denied it was a tax.

In that way, CJ Robers "split the baby".  He didn't simply remand it back, to tell the legislators the
mandate with the penalty is unconstitutional, try again... Instead, HE REWROTE the legislation, to FIND it was a tax, when that's not the political journey it took...

It matters.
It matters, it matters, it matters.

By trying to please all peoples, he gave both sides half a baby.  Those who imply that he simply gave an intact child back to the parents to decide what to do are wrong.  He green-lighted the legality of this thing, despite the horribly wind-y route the legislation took in getting passed in the first place.

Once again,
we're in the "too big too fail" days.  Chief Justice Roberts thought historically, instead of simply being an honest craftsman working on the little piece of the job that fell to his expertise.  He gambled that ... it was up to him to save the union. 

In doing so, he might have made tomorrow's fight even worse.  Voters can never begin to sew that baby back together, and there probably is very little will right now to work together honestly, when everyone is seeking every tricky little advantage to benefit their own financial preferences.

Too big to fail lives.
Who will finally step up to take this mentality down?
Where is the Jacksonian Democrat of tomorrow?