[Speed Gibson,
Tuesday October 12, 2004 at 2:22pm]
Did You Get the Memo?
I am astounded listening to Laura Ingraham this morning. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post is saying in the calmest of tones how the Bush campaign is stretching the truth significantly more than the Kerry campaign. Laura said Howard Fineman of Newsweek agrees, and of course, we know how Mark Halperin feels, given his leaked memo.
I won't claim to know these three or their work very well, but I've no reason to think any of them is irrational or as severely partisan as they would appear. Yet, there it is, three respected MSM voices saying it is President Bush that is kissing the Blarney Stone.
The first possibility is that I have it wrong and they are right. But who spouts all the false information in the recent debates? John Kerry. Even within the same debate, John Kerry contradicts himself as to whether Saddam Hussein was a threat, and no, none of this was out of context. The blogosphere has detailed dozens of examples. The dark side (the left) has managed little more than finding Cheney with Edwards at a prayer breakfast. And who tacitly approves all the slander in Fahrenheit 911? The MSM. Who ignores the Swift Vets, falsely claiming they've been discredited? The MSM. No, we have it right.
So, are they merely ignorant or oblivious? The MSM has long held that examining your opponent's voting record is a personal attack, for example. And when a candidate has an extensive and consistent voting record, it's a really nasty personal attack. We have to get beyond this, have a civil debate on the future they say. A man repeatedly votes to cut intelligence spending and raise taxes over 20 years, but I'm to believe that man will now act differently because he says so?
So, are they lying? Whether they actually are or not, what they're saying is provably false about Bush being more deceptive than Kerry. The hard proof is everywhere to the opposite conclusion, massive and irrefutable. Now, can someone in the news business claim ignorance as a defense? I don't think so. We can hold the news media to higher standard because they claim as their craft that they have such powers of discernment. They know stuff.
I suspect these people spend most of their time in their liberal enclaves, cut off from the feedback that otherwise enlighten them. Why else would they so publicly expose their "ignorance" or worse?
I won't claim to know these three or their work very well, but I've no reason to think any of them is irrational or as severely partisan as they would appear. Yet, there it is, three respected MSM voices saying it is President Bush that is kissing the Blarney Stone.
The first possibility is that I have it wrong and they are right. But who spouts all the false information in the recent debates? John Kerry. Even within the same debate, John Kerry contradicts himself as to whether Saddam Hussein was a threat, and no, none of this was out of context. The blogosphere has detailed dozens of examples. The dark side (the left) has managed little more than finding Cheney with Edwards at a prayer breakfast. And who tacitly approves all the slander in Fahrenheit 911? The MSM. Who ignores the Swift Vets, falsely claiming they've been discredited? The MSM. No, we have it right.
So, are they merely ignorant or oblivious? The MSM has long held that examining your opponent's voting record is a personal attack, for example. And when a candidate has an extensive and consistent voting record, it's a really nasty personal attack. We have to get beyond this, have a civil debate on the future they say. A man repeatedly votes to cut intelligence spending and raise taxes over 20 years, but I'm to believe that man will now act differently because he says so?
So, are they lying? Whether they actually are or not, what they're saying is provably false about Bush being more deceptive than Kerry. The hard proof is everywhere to the opposite conclusion, massive and irrefutable. Now, can someone in the news business claim ignorance as a defense? I don't think so. We can hold the news media to higher standard because they claim as their craft that they have such powers of discernment. They know stuff.
I suspect these people spend most of their time in their liberal enclaves, cut off from the feedback that otherwise enlighten them. Why else would they so publicly expose their "ignorance" or worse?