Saturday, July 07, 2007

Journamalism

Was Bill Clinton smart to pick a fight with the White House? - By John Dickerson - Slate Magazine: "When Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich at the end of his term, about-to-be-President Bush and his aides didn't make a huge stink. "

On the contrary. Rove directed an all-out assault against Clinton over the Rich pardon. Trent Lott and Tom DeLay led the outcry. Bush and his aides were to cowardly to attack Clinton directly, they used the exact same surrogate slime technique that led to Libby being convicted.

What is the point in a 'journalist' who can't remember the events of six years ago, or be bothered to check before reporting GOP talking points verbatim?

Update:

In an email exchange John asked me for proof to back the claim that the WH was involved. This is strange, isn't the journalist who makes an assertion required to provide the proof rather than those who might question them when they make a statement of fact that there is every reason to beleive is false?

The relevant facts omitted from this article are:

1) The fact that senior GOP leaders did in fact lead the attacks against Clinton on the Rich pardon

2) The fact that Libby was Rich's pardon attorney (surely worth a mention here).

3) The fact that the Whitehouse does engage in off the record sliming of its opponents

4) The fact that the pejury charges Libby was convicted of related directly to a Bush administration slime operation.

Seems to me that when Slate became part of the establishment media they started to play by their rules. A fact is what the establishment assert to be fact and may be quoted without the need to provide any supporting evidence as establishment facts cannot be challenged without proof.

So where is Dickerson's proof that Bush and his aides had no part in the Rich pardon controversy?

Update 2

John points out that he did in fact mention the Libby lawyer thing. But still demands proof that what he wrote is false rather than providing evidence to demonstrate that it is true.

2 comments:

John said...

>>His reply: You can't prove that the Whitehouse was behind those attacks.

What I actually wrote in my email:

"I wrote that Bush and his aides didn't make a big stink. If you have proof, evidence or reporting that Bush and his aides did (not just an unproven assertion) I'd love to see it. It would be great to know. Thanks."

Phill H-B said...

Seems like we have different interpretations of the phrase 'making a big stink'.

My reading of the phrase includes orchestrating the stink from behind the scenes. In John's peculiar world only the public statements of a politician count.