Bad Jouralism from the Right

[erpowers]

I have just read on a few blogs that the WSJ and some Republicans are trying to make a fuss about the fact that the Dean campaign paid two bloggers last year. So when it comes out that they are misleading the public how many of them will lose their jobs? I can figure that none of them will and that little will be made of the fact that the story was very misleading. Everything done by the Dean campaign and the bloggers was legitimate

[Cocoa]

1. let's start with Paul Begala

his treatment of the matter was pure smear, against a dem no less. :puke:

[Eric J in MN]

7. It was a new story when Robert Novak brought it up,

and Paul Begula wasn't prepared to respond.

Beguala didn't smear anyone. Novak smeared Howard Dean.

[Cocoa]

9. did you see that particular "Crossfire"?

there was no daylight between Begala and Novak on the Howard Dean smear, or between them on who should be DNC chair.

[blm]

2. Did FOX fire anyone for reporting Clinton fathered a black woman's son?

Don't you remember? They said DNA tests proved it. The NY Post reported it, too in front page headlines.

Did anyone lose their job for lying about a sitting president?

[bluestateguy]

3. Fully expected: usual pattern of Bush scandals

A few days of bad press, excuse making, stonewalling, accusations against the accusers and then the story disappears.

[HEyHEY]

4. bloggin is not journalism to begin with

It's not held to any ethics period

[Clark2008]

6. Maybe so, but, anymore, neither is journalism. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

8. There aren't "Blogging Schools" like "Journalism Schools"

to teach ethics, but bloggers should be ethical.

[gratuitous]

5. Yeah, the Dean campaign hired two bloggers

To provide technical experience, and both of them fully disclosed their connections to the Dean campaign, but at the time, nobody noticed.

Walletfat Williams is secretly paid nearly a quarter million TAX dollars to shill for Bush administration proposals, and there's somehow an equivalency. Uh huh.

This is the same sort of bullshit that equated the Swift Boat liars with the CBS documents. The Swifties were well-financed liars backed by big Republican donors who had all kinds of ties to the Bush campaign. CBS told the truth about Bush's receiving preferential treatment to wriggle out of his National Guard obligations, but didn't have the original documents.

Tell me that one again about the liberal media? It's always good for a chuckle.