The charges leveled by the New York Times against John McCain regarding his relationship with a K Street lobbyist mark the current low water mark for the newspaper and American journalism. The alleged "affair" took place during the 1990s, why wasn't this brought up then? The Times refuses to allow the authors of these charges to speak with other media outlets;why?
Apparently Rush Limbaugh's so-called decline will be discounted by the publication of these allegations. Limbaugh had predicted, when the Times endorsed McCain for president, that once he gained momentum that some type of smear campaign would be launched against him by the "liberal drive-by media". Is this Times article the opening salvo? The disgusting aspect of the charges is that they are unsubstantiated and in fact made by innuendo rather than directly; something beneath the dignity and misssion of the New York Times.
Has the immaturity level of liberalism pushed the Times to the level of a high school gossip publication? How the Times expect to be taken seriously now? This the latest in a few years long decline in its integrity. The vacuity of the liberal press is made obvious by those who read, believe, and espouse its ramblings. A close examination of the Obama phenomenom makes it clear that emotion not thought is the driving force behind his candidacy. This same attitude permeates the media: make a charge and see if it sticks seems to be the guiding editorial principle.
The New York Times masthead proclaims "All The News That's Fit To Print" one should remember the Mad Magazine parody of "All The News That Fits" when considering its efficacy.
World opinion appears to be important to most Americans, why then is there no blushing when stories like the McCain allegations are published. This is not reporting, nor is it thoughtful editorial posturing. It is simply aping the National Enquirer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment