BAD JOURNALISM - ON VARIOUS FRONTS

Sunday, while at the shop getting my toes trimmed and my feet scraped (aka a pedicure), the shop had CNN tuned in and whilst watching some chunky broad (didn't get her name and didn't care) was interviewing Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Talk about a deeply illuminating interview! Not! Senator Lincoln kept blathering on about how Republicans are sending around disparaging flyers about her and spending lots of money to defeat her. Hey Senator Lincoln - that's what an election IS! Bottom line - no followup questions from the interviewer along the lines of - WHAT specifically is in the flyers that are so disparaging and are the charges true, close to true or utterly false? And if false, how are they false and can you prove it? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy - sycophantic journalism from CNN.

Then the conversation held with Helen Thomas hit the airwaves via Rabbilive.com and we heard for certain what we've always known - this so called journalist is about as far away as one can be from unbiased in her approach! So sad that she had to resign.

It's in my mind to have an imaginary matchup in my head with my most admired journalist - the late, absolutely great, unequaled Dorothy Fuldheim and this despicable and hateful woman who has squated like a malevolent toad in the front row of the White House press room for far too long. And thank heavens THAT nonsense is finally at an end.

An unbiased, unfettered and completely free press is one of the bulwarks of our nation's freedoms. Dare I hope that in some miniscule fashion we are getting a tad closer to returning to those standards?

Naw - I didn't think so either!

RATHERGATE REVISITED!

When Dan Rather reported that he had documents that impeached then-President George W. Bush’s military service and those documents were produced and later proven to be absolute forgeries, one portion of the story never came out.

Dan Rather’s fired producer Mary Mapes knew and had known for weeks that George W. Bush had VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam and ended up not serving in Vietnam because other, more experienced pilots were sent ahead of him while he was still in training. Since Ms. Mapes knew that George W. Bush had volunteered, she was obligated by journalistic ethics, to include that information in the report of Dan Rather on the air. She did not. Did Rather know, and if so, when did he know it?

When the so-called lost military documents were produced and examined by people online, we quickly realized that there was no way that those documents had been produced at an Air Force Base in the 1970s. They were done in a typeface that wasn’t available for another 15 years and then only on computers. And it was obvious.

Dan Rather kept insisting that the story was true, even if the documents were false. I found that point of view to be both troubling and somewhat astonishing. How much of that stemmed from Rather's longstanding antipathy for George H.W. Bush which was spilling forth onto the son? This is another factor of the story that should have been reported as part of Rather’s story. He should have reported his bias, the source of the bias and the length of it. He did not. So on that basis, I cannot excuse him, whether he knew that President G.W. Bush had volunteered or whether he did not.

Where is this information to be found? On page 130 of the report produced by an independent panel hired by CBS to research and examine and then produce a report. Their report is readily available online. The information has been available for years and nobody was ever curious enough or thorough enough to read the report thoroughly until an unnamed source directed the attention of journalist Bernard Goldberg to page 130 where this lonely, little emphasized or noticed fact became evident!

Is the press biased in favor of Democrats? Don’t make me laugh!

FASCINATING TIDBIT!

Times executive editor hints at online access fees
By ANICK JESDANUN,AP Business Writer AP - Wednesday, February 4

NEW YORK - The editor of The New York Times has hinted that the newspaper might charge again for access to some of its online offerings, less than two years after abandoning fees to boost advertising revenue.

Executive Editor Bill Keller gave no specifics or timetable, and company officials characterized the internal discussions as general and ongoing.

Editor Keller - nobody wants to read the NYT for FREE - what makes you think they'd be willing to PAY?