Replies

Let's be clear, journalistic standards aren't a good thing, they're just codename for left-wing bias. The standard journalist is a lefty loon. Helen has preeminent journalist standards. Those are very different from regular, ethical standards. In journalist-speak, a quotation doesn't have to be verbatim, just a representation of what the journalist understood was being said. Helen displayed an example of her current "unbiased" journalistic standards with the following question...
Will you state for the record, for the historical record, why [Bush] wants to bomb Iraqi people? (asked on March 5, 2003 to Ari Fleischer).

Or how about the famous quote from Dan Rather (displaying his own journalistic standards after and interview with the impeached former president...
“If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners....Tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.”

"Journalists" like Chris Matthews (Ed Muskie staffer, Tip O'Neill mouthpiece) and Tim Russert (Moynahan and Cuomo's boy) still populate their unbiased panels with nothing but NYTimes lefties, WaPo lefties, NPR lefties and the lefty Rather. Journalists are just like the scorpion who promised not to sting the frog who would convey him across a river. The scorpion could not help but be a scorpion, so he stung the frog. The journalist cannot help but be left-wing biased. It's not something to be wished for, just understood for what it is (standard journalist).