I like reading Andrew Sullivan's blog (particularly when he digresses from politics and discusses the secret, underground world of bears and otters, but that's a conversation for another item). I generally disagree with him, but I don't find him as insufferable as most conservative hawks, so it's interesting to get a divergent viewpoint now and then.
But, today he's going off on Dan Rather again, and is beginning to tip over into unsufferable again:
"Why on earth is Rather staying on full-time at Sixty Minutes, the show whose reputation he besmirched by rashness and partisanship? Rather's tenure as CBS anchor was bound to end some time soon. Big deal. A simple question: How can you rehire a man for Sixty Minutes when you haven't even published your own investigation into the journalistic meltdown that he presided over? Shouldn't you wait until you know what actually happened before you declare that someone will stay on full-time? And how long does such an investigation take, for Pete's sake? My bullshit detector just went through the roof on this one."
Haven't we all had enough of this "Dan Rather and his tainted memos" nonsense. I watched that episode of 60 Minutes, and a very small part of his case was based on the fraudulent memos. This turn of events certainly hasn't vindicated Georgie W. or his stated position that there was no favoritism involved in his enrollment in the champagne unit of the Texas Air National Guard.
But, no, they have to continue to tear Rather to shreds for being a partisan.
I mean, he's a journalist, and it would have been a big story, right? Wouldn't any real journalist go after a big story, even if it violated their personal politics? What ever happened to that point of view? Why should we just assume all journalists are total partisan hacks who just want to advance their own side, and never question it?
And do right-wingers believe, say, Sean Hannity would come forward with damning evidence against his president because of his journalistic, erm, ethics?
No comments:
Post a Comment