The MSM is now running scared that they will be sucked into this mess. They know they have bloody hands as well helping the Democrats and they are all in overdrive trying to see who can be tougher on CBS.
It won't last though. The only way to clean this up would be for the Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Time, CNN, NYT, etc would be for them to fire 50% of the hard core liberals on their staff and start fresh.
The leftist media wants to keep the spotlight on CBS so it doesn't shine any light on their own agenda driven news coverage.
I'd put it, "...destroying a competitor."
I'd put it, "...destroying a competitor."
Could you make that around 75%?
;-)
No it won't. Liberal's support for the war on terror didn't last long (as I predicted) and the press' new-found objectiveness won't last long either.
In any event, USA Today did one of the fastest 180s in the history of journalism. Apparently, the editorial checks and balances work better at USA Today than at CBS News, although I should point out that the paper has never apologized (nor explained) its original hit piece. It is also debatable how quickly USA Today would have changed its tune had the Jack Kelly scandal never occurred.
But here's the real bottom line for American journalism. Why did no one in the media challenge the memos until the bloggers and the FReepers pointed out the obvious deficiencies in the CBS documents? The MSM was quite willing to let CBS News air a fraudulent story, and would have dismissed Republican questions about the stories as partisian rhetoric. As Sean Hannity (and others) have pointed out, the carefully contrived ANG story was designed to turn the election--and it might have, without the new media, including FR.
You could fire half the liberals at the NYT, Washington Post, Newsweek, et al., and they'd still be hopeless causes. They're dinosaurs, and the ice age has already begun. Americans are voting with their feet, their pocket books and their remote controls and the MSM is (thankfully) in its death throes...
Only with regard to stories that don't matter, or that have already been "conceded."
The media is just as biased today as it was yesterday, maybe moreso. It is foolish to think and act as though the media is even a tiny bit objective, except in as much as it presents what facts it chooses to.
The media is starting to act more objectively and responsibly.
The only way to have a responsible media is to completely eliminate the use of "unnamed sources." There is almost never a good journalistic reason to have your source remain unnamed.
If the balance of the media would immediately question the authenticity of any report based on an anonymous source, this deceitful practice would stop.
All these stories put all the onus for "checking sources before broadcasting" on C___BS. The fact is, in my recollection EVERY MAJOR NEWS SOURCE (Old Media, that is) repeated C___BS's FRAUDcast without themselves checking that it passed the smell test.
ANY of them could have been monitoring FR and the blogs and within HOURS generated a story calling it into question, and within 36 hours have known they were almost certainly fraudlent. Yet, nearly all of them ran stories even TWO DAYS later relying on these FORGERIES. After two-three days, any reporter who was willing to spend six hours of research with FR and the blogs could have, and should have, decreed with certainty that C___BS had perpetrated a Fraud on the American public, AND that the source was either directly tied to the DNC, or that it was closely associated with the DNC.
None of them did so. They are all complicit in the FRAUDcast.
/