When will Democrats begin to challenge BushCo media whores DIRECTLY?

[Vinnie From Indy]

It would seem that challenging the reporting of all the usual suspects on the talking head shows DIRECTLY should be a tactic adopted until the election. For example, when Leslie Blitzer asks one of his breathless idiotic questions, Democrats should scold him for his bias and seeming complicity on pushing the BushCo line. When Tim Russert ambushes Democrats with video clips, Democrats should attack Russert directly for his past shilling for BushCo. These guys need to made part of the story and they need to know that they WILL BE DIRECTLY CHALLENGED for their shilling. In short, Democrats need to marginalize these guys and put THEM on the defensive.

[DanCa]

1. There is safety in numbers.

As soon as we regain the house or senate than they'll become more vocal.

[MsUnderstood]

2. A great question

This weekend on Tim Russert's news show, John Kerry was being interviewed. Here is the interview piece that amazed and angered me:

Tim Russert names some guy and gives him credibility by saying "who just published a book" then goes on to read the guys claim like it was straight from the bible.

The quote was basically that John Kerry used a focus group to decide how to respond to Abu Garib
and then becuase the focus group had conflicting responses John said nothing.

Now Tim Russert is a reporter, has the same resources (more) than you and I have yet he did nothing to search for "John Kerry" and "ABU GHARIB" on his own to see exactly what John said 2 years ago.

Then John had to chuckle and say "I don't know about a focus group but here is what I did say" and then John states point by point the statments he made about the prison torture.

Now what do the lazy viewerS do? They think to themselves "Politicians lie, John is a politician, he therefore is a liar and Tim Russert is right stating that John Kerry said nothing against the prison torture."

Then later this week some even righter news paper is going to quote Tim Russert as their source for the "fact" that John Kerry didn't speak out against Abu Gharib.

How I wish John Kerry could have said to Tim. "you know-both of us have a job. Your job is to state facts. That means you have to research information to verify it is factual. Could you ask your staff in the future to research these "facts" before questioning me with this kind of lazy reporting?"

Now I know if anyone were to call Tim Russert he would just say "I'm just reporting what someone else said but I truly believe he has a responsibility to verify his gossip.

[Jane Austin]

3. Likewise, Blitzer said to Kerry on Late Edition

". . . a lot of people think Democrats are all over the place when it comes to Iraq," as he swayed his head back and forth to illustrate the extent and looniness of "all over the place."

Why in the heck can't the person being interviewed pop back with "Well, Wolf, maybe the reason a lot of people think that is because you say just that, day after day, on your program.

"After all, you are on every day, and you have a lot of influence over what people think about Democrats."

Gawd Almighty, I'd jump up and cheer if I heard one of ours say that!

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Amen!

The point is that Democrats need to bring up the past outrageous shilling by Russert and the rest while seated across from them. The other thing that enrages me is the seeming lack of preparation by many Dems when they appear on these shows. For example, I heard dozens of discussion this weekend about the Plame leak and NOT ONE DEMOCRAT mentioned Brewster-Jennings. Granted, that was most likely not the focus of the discussion, but it is part of the reason why the Plame issue IS NOT JUST ABOUT PLAME. It is a much bigger issue with gigantic real world ramifications beyond Valerie Plame.

[400Years]

5. I'm wondering the same thing myself.