Kerry rumor tests media's standards

[onehandle]

Some conservatives are angry, but many media watchdogs are praising the way most American news outlets handled 2004's first titillating allegation about a presidential candidate's personal life.

snip...

"Drudge says 'major media ought to be ashamed of themselves' for not pursuing a 'red-hot story.'

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-19-media-kerry_x.htm

Drudge, they pursued it. Saw it was shit, and wisely ignored it. You idiot.

[bluestateguy]

1. A story about a story that the media did not cover

which of course requires repeating the allegations :eyes:

[AP]

2. I have to say, nobody I know in the real world had any idea what I was

talking about when I mentioned this story.

This major media totally laid off of it.

[countmyvote4real]

3. The media is caught between a rock and a hard place...

They would love to get all frothed up in a Kerry sexual scandal, but then there's that Governor Perry of Texas thing.

Damn, how are they supposed to sell ads if nobody cares about hypocrisy anymore?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. And The Part About Clark Leaking It Was Also Made Up

Apparently NONE of the 12 reporters who interviewed Clark that day can recall him saying anything at all about the Kerry campaign imploding over intern issues. Yet, I heard CNN report, even after the Drudge Report was debunked, that it started with Clark and his operatives. A lot of apologies are owed.

"...February 19, 2004
WHAT CLARK NEVER SAID. It's been taken for granted that Wesley Clark
helped set off certain now-debunked rumors about John Kerry. Clark
was "reported" by Matt Drudge to have told a group of reporters
that "Kerry will implode over an intern issue" during an off-the-
record conversation. But The New Republic's Ryan Lizza was among
those reporters, and says Clark never made any such statement. Lizza
says he's checked with the others who were there, and they concur.
Which makes sense; the whole thing was out of character for Clark in
the first place. Lizza's post deserves wide attention, lest this
particular mythlet live on.
--Nick Confessore...'

[BruinAlum]

5. Let me get this straight. Drudge is citing a story proven to be false

as evidence that the major media ought to be ashamed of themselves, because they didn't spread it for him when he dangled it in front of their noses? He's using a story proven to be a lie to make his point? :wtf:

And Rush says the media showed a liberal bias. :eyes:

Well, all I've got to say is there was no liberal bias around here. As I recall, it was gleefully exploited and promoted as gospel in this forum by liberals who should have known better.

[emulatorloo]

6. Page 3 - Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Have posted it several times, but it is such a succinct description of the strategy -- especially now the outrage that the "Liberal Media" ignored the story.

Franken re Drudge, Fox News, Washington Times, New York Post, Editorial pages of WSJ,Talk Radio:

"The members of the right-wing media . . .employ a tried-and-true methodology. First, they concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals. . .They repeat it. . .They embellish it. . .They try to push it into the mainstream media. All too often they succeed. . .Occasionally, they fail. . .But even their failures serve their agenda, as evidence of liberal bias. Win-win. You got to admit. It's a good racket."