What did I tell you? It began in March. Tom Shales right on cue:

Perhaps in keeping with the newly globalized program, the commendable “In Memoriam” segment ended with a tribute not to American men and women who died in combat during the preceding week but rather, said Amanpour in her narration, in remembrance of “all of those who died in war” in that period. Did she mean suggest that our mourning extend to members of the Taliban?

He cannot be serious. It’s so laughable that Washington Post editors must be shooting for page views to help keep their sinking profit margin boosted online.

Tom Shales’ review of Ms. Amanpour is swiftboating high art. I know you won’t be shocked that Newsbusters is delighting in his derisive attack. Considering the way Shales judges women, it’s understandable that right-wingers would relate.

But Shales takes out after Christiane Amanpour’s impressive reporting history by diminishing her 27-year resume. Ms. Amanpour has tackled the toughest subjects and gone places on earth Shales has not ever seen. His misogynistic mumbling reduces Amanpour to a “globe-trotting Fancy-Pants” that is unbefitting this career professional and the respect she has earned.

Even so, the adept and likable Tapper stood a good chance of steering “This Week” into the kind of dominance that “Meet the Press” has so long enjoyed. And it didn’t require any globe-trotting Fancy-Pants to do it.

As for “pomp and panoply,” that’s hardly Amanpour, who’s done everything she can over her decades-long career to stay out of politics. At least he didn’t say Iranian globe-trotting Fancy-Pants, which we all know is where Shales’ beef really lies. Though after calling her “Little ms. Politics,” no one should doubt that Shales simply has a problem with women.