Monday, March 07, 2005

Cancel Your L.A. Times Subscription

I try to avoid the L.A. Times at all costs, and have for a long time now. Last week The LAT got into some hot water for printing a pro-North Korea puff piece. Today I saw how Susan Estrich is upset at the Times for not employing enough female op-ed writers (hat tip: PowerLine). Come on Susan, is that the biggest problem we face these days? It's not enough that all the L.A.Times editorials show hardcore left-wing bias, now they have to be hardcore left-wing and female-penned?

Today Drudge linked this article by Scott Collins on Dan Rather's impending retirement. In addition to all the confusion and poor morale now engulfing CBS, it describes some of the ups and downs of "Hurricane Dan's" career. Buried deep in the article was this nugget (emphasis mine):
Less than two months before the election, Rather, a correspondent on "60
Minutes Wednesday," presented a report that suggested Bush received preferential
treatment while serving in the Texas Air National Guard. It was based, in
part, on documents that could not be authenticated.

Is "could not be authenticated" the best Collins can do? He must be kidding. I may be making too much out of this, but "forged" or "fraudulent" would be more accurate terms for the TANG documents. Judging by the tone of most of his article, I don't think Collins was trying to protect Rather from further embarrassment. But it does seem like sloppy reporting.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?