So, just to get you all up to speed, there's a document forgery scandal perched upon a longer running scandal about the current President's National Guard service. All this during one of the most hotly contested elections in history. One in which thousands were arrested protesting a convention by the party of the sitting president. An election which has generated broadway plays and books about the hypothetical assassination of the President.
At any rate, there's this document forgery business going around, and it first was noticed by some poor schlub on the internet. Who, by the way, posted anonymously (probably out of professional self-preservation).
So, the LA Times, in their quest for truth, decide that it's appropriate to OUT this guy? This is from the same bloody media that opines about another lightning rod in this scandal, Bill Burkett:
""I have no idea; I have no individual knowledge about that," said David Haigler, chairman of the Taylor County Democratic Party. "All I know is that I trust Bill Burkett. He's been a citizen soldier who decided to stand up and say what is on his mind, and he's got nothing but grief for it."Haigler said Burkett had received several death threats since his name surfaced as a possible source for "60 Minutes." "There's just a lot of crazies out here, but Bill Burkett is not one of them. And if the issue is whether Bill Burkett concocted a bunch of records, that makes me want to throw up," Haigler said."
They bitch because one guy gets all this nasty treatment, and then decides that the best way to handle another, equally problematic situation, by deciding to publish a bloody hatchet job.
Where the hell are the editors for these folks? Seriously, have they no ethics. They could have communicated the same exact point and simply said that they are choosing not to release his name. All that this is going to do is paint a target on his back. If pressed, they could simply keep him as an anonymous source.
You know, if you're going to go out of your way to try to exonerate Burkett, do the same for Buckhead. If you're going to hatchet Buckhead, then do the same for Burkett. But don't praise Burkett in order to endanger Buckhead, and then turn around and tell me how goddamn honest and balanced you are.
Launched by Bravo Romeo Delta at September 18, 2004 02:47 AMIf that was a hatchet job, it was a pretty pathetic one. I mean, all that they revealed was that Buckhead was (gasp!) a Republican, and a reasonably prominent one at that.
Really, all they succeeded in showing is what we already knew: that the internet, and the blog medium in particular, lets all sorts of talented people participate in politics directly in a way they would not have been permitted to before.
Posted by: Mycroft at September 19, 2004 05:16 PMSo.... what say you of the lack luster apology from CBS Pres and their backing away from their memos?
I guess now you'll have to develop a 3rd "type of outcome on scandals": a sort of combination of 1 and 2 but in the end no one resigns, though much foot dragging was found, and we didn't let it slide.
Posted by: michele at September 21, 2004 04:44 AMIndeed, these guys are pathetic. What they did in my view was bolster the credibility of Buckhead by explaining this is a bright guy who pays attention. Meanwhile Burkett is coming across as a nutty crank.
It seems to me that if you're running for office, you always want the LA Times to be rooting for the other guy.
Posted by: MartiniPundit at September 21, 2004 07:55 PM