September 28, 2004
— Ace No, not Mary Mapes; the other one. Josh Howard.
Certainly no "shadowy links" here!
One of the most offensive things about this whole scandal was Rather's dismissal of critics -- who were of course not only right, but obviously so -- as "partisan political operatives." That's the liberal media in a nutshell-- those who argue against the liberal media line a "partisan" and "extremist" and not to be trusted, while they happily quote left-wing sources and "experts" without noting the partisan affiliation of those sources.
So Dan Rather did the following:
-- He called Bill Burkett, a rabidly-partisan, viciously anti-Bush crank an "unimpeachable source."
-- He let hardcore feminist and liberal Mary Mapes dick around on this story for five years, and then defended her unethical behavior in putting these forgeries on the air.
-- He employed a former staffer for Chuck Schumer as a main producer on the story, while simultaneously dismissing his critics as "partisan political operatives."
The liberal media doesn't, it seem, really mind "partisan political operatives," so much as it objects to Republicans and conservatives generally.
I would like the liberal legacy media to explain why it is that half of the country is to be presumed dishonorable and dishonest for daring to express an opinion that diverges from its own.
They do not see themselves as having a partisan point of view. Those conservatives, however, they're bad and wrong and icky and stupid and evil and greedy and selfish...but we're 'normal'.
Posted by: addison at September 28, 2004 03:49 PM (wiRK6)
Doesn't that question sort of answer itself, Ace?
Posted by: Tom at September 29, 2004 08:12 AM (3E+YO)
62 queries taking 1.0018 seconds, 238 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.