The Liberal Media

I'm vacationing in California and I thought I'd let you know that the LA Times reports in 4 short paragraphs "House Passes Compromise Bill" on page A11. Obviously that story is much less important than the front page stories, which include:

"Hard-earned Million: Lil Wayne is a Tough Act to Follow"

and

"Multiple Choice for SAT takers"

It's jarring.

It's VERY jarring.

The WaPo had a piece up yesterday that didn't even quote any opponents of FISA. And the other day when Taguba talked about the Bush administration committing war crimes the Post ran a story that totally downplayed this explosive charge.

I sent the following to them in their online chat but of course they never answered.

I have a couple of questions about a Joby Warrick story that appeared on page A7 of the Post:

Exams Back Up Reports of Detainee Abuse, Group Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061800336.html

I almost missed this story because I was looking for a headline that talked about a former Bush administration general accusing the administration of war crimes.

Why did the Post bury the headline on this story? Does the Post believe it is not newsworthy that a former General accuses the administration of war crimes?

Included in the Warrick piece was this single characterization about what Taguba said. It was at the end of the piece and did not include his actual quote:

"In a statement accompanying the report, retired Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army's first official investigation on Abu Ghraib, said the new evidence SUGGESTED a "systematic regime of torture" inside U.S.-run detention camps."

Do Warrick and the Post really think that Taguba only SUGGESTED torture when he said:

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Why did Warrick and the Post go out of their way to downplay this story?

I just saw this link on Democratic Underground

(Warning it will tick you off even more)

Behind the Compromise on Spying

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1816911,00.html

When I saw the awful, fact free Calabresi piece about Nancy in Time yesterday I knew that it wouldn't be long before you were exposing it in your column for what it was. Thanks for not disppointing.

Speaking of media quacks like Calabresi, I hope everyone commented on the Broder piece in the WaPo today. You would think that after having been spanked by Howell yesterday that Broder would at least pretend that he was contrite. But if you thought that way you'd be wrong. I'm beginning to think that in addition to being a lousy journalist Broder's quite possibly a sociopath, as well.

Here's a link to his column

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002275.html

Here's what I had to say about his column:

pmorlan1 wrote:

I must say that even I was stunned to see that imediately following the ombudsman's column, where she confirmed that you are not only an unethical journalist but a serial liar who tried to pin the blame for your transgressions on others, that you would actually think that you of all people were in any kind of a position to question the character of anyone. And yet when I read your column there it was - David Broder, serial liar telling your readers that voters may have a problem trusting Obama while at the same time you dismissed McCain's shifting positions because in your view McCain's reputation for straight talk shields him from any questions about whether HE can be trusted.

The first thing I thought of when I read that passage was the word gall. But then it dawned on me that when you wrote those words about McCain you were really writing about yourself too, weren't you? You want all of us to give you the same pass that you're encouraging voters to give to McCain. You think that both you and McCain should be forgiven for serial lies because in your view both you and McCain are owed that much because of what you see as your sterling reputations. The only problem with that scenario Mr Broder, is that both you and McCain's reputations have been built on a foundation of lies. They are nothing but a shimmering concoction from the beltway establishment. They are not reality.

When you tell us that McCain's shifting positions do not seem to have damaged his aura aren't you really saying Mr. Broder, that you hope that your lies and unethical conduct has not damaged what you perceive to be your own aura as the "dean" of the beltway crowd?

You know what's funny? You might have convinced a few people with your self serving, all is forgiven storyline but then you reverted to character and went out of your way to disingenously insinuate that while you and McCain should be forgiven for shifting positions, the candidate you don't like shouldn't get the same treatment. Once again you've tried to deflect attention away from your own failings by trying to blame others. It didn't work when you tried it on the ombudsman and it won't work now because we've all gotten to know Broder, all too well.

6/22/2008 5:42:04 AM