The "Gore-ing" Of Hillary Clinton
Posted on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
By Big Tent Democrat
Speaking for me only
Anyone wondering if NBC believes in wall to wall coverage of Hillary Clinton, even as they declare the Dem nomination race over, need only read the daily transcript of KO Keith Olbermann's Obama Screedcast Against Clinton. The first 30 minutes of Monday's version were devoted to attacking Hillary Clinton. But this was the highlight moment:
[DANA MILBANK:] . . . But in the interview, as people have found out, well, basically the guts of the story are true and probably, this woman [Trina Bachtel], had she gotten better care, things would have turned out better. The problem is, when you‘re in this sort of exaggeration position as previously Al Gore and John Kerry found themselves in, it‘s very hard to escape this. So, even a fairly innocent one like this, is just one more piece on the pile.
(Emphasis mine.) Keith Olbermann, NBC, the Media and the "progressive blogs" are now doing to Hillary Clinton what the Media did to Al Gore in 2000. This is what the "progressive blogs" and the Obama News Network (NBC) are about. As eriposte shows, the progressive blogosphere and its news reader mascot (Olbermann) died this campaign season. May they be reborn soon. More . . .
. . . Why did the Post spend its time and resources checking those public records? We can’t answer that. But the pattern here is quite familiar to anyone who has watched this film about other Big Dems, especially about Candidate Gore. By their own admission, the press corps “fact-checked” quite selectively when it came to Candidates Bush and Gore—and they mind-read Gore quite thoroughly. This allowed them to tell the story they loved: Gore is a big liar, just like Bill Clinton. When we read Kornblut’s report last week, we suspected Clinton was now getting Gored—that the press corps was now working to churn a novel about her own vast lying. Does everybody get fact-checked this way? History, and current experience, say that they do not.
Second, pundits shouldn’t have spoken with certainty based on a single hospital’s unchecked report. This was a dumb thing for people like Matthews to do: Sometimes, hospital spokespersons don’t tell you the truth; sometimes, as in this case, they may not actually know the full story. But Matthews (and others) weren’t doing journalism; they were mainly retyping a favorite old novel. And so, like Clinton, they failed to fact-check their story thoroughly. They asserted far more than they knew.
(Emphasis supplied.) Read the whole thing.
NOTE - Comments closed.
| < SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18 | Clinton, McCain And Petraeus > |
