Hugh Hewitt has his BS meter on high;
[L]et me underline two recent media events which deserve more scrutiny than they have thus far received.The first is the genuinely scandalous assertion by CNN's Eason Jordan, made at the World Economic Forum, that the United States military has targeted and killed a dozen journalists. The account of Jordan's remarks - including his backpedaling and the crowd's reactions--is available at ForumBlog. Thus far no major media outlet has demanded an accounting of Jordan, but the idea that a major figure from American media traffics
in such outlandish and outrageous slanders on the American military deserves attention and criticism, not indifference. It is no wonder that anti-American propaganda gains traction in the world when American news executives set fantasies such as this one in motion. If Jordan had no grounds for peddling this grassy-knoll garbage, he should be fired. If he did have even the flimsiest of grounds, he ought to share his evidence and let the public decide whether his judgment is as flawed as it was when he covered for Saddam all those years.
Well as Hugh points out - this is the man who confessed that CNN had become the "Voice Of Saddam in America " during the years leading up to the war to ensure access ... and there's been no news he's undergone an integrity transpant since then ...
THE SECOND SUBJECT for mulling is John Kerry's extraordinary interview with Tim Russert last Sunday. There's a lot to absorb here, including Kerry's assertion that he did indeed run guns and CIA men into Cambodia on secret missions--and to aid the Khmer Rouge no less!What is really remarkable is not Kerry's whoppers--he couldn't have meant the Khmer Rouge, right?--or his almost certain not-to-be-fulfilled pledge to sign the form 180. It is the set of questions Tim Russert posed.
Russert is generally regarded as the toughest interview in television, and he did bleed Kerry a bit during the campaign; afterwards Kerry never again came close to Russert's set before November 2.
But if the questions posed by Russert on January 30, 2005--on Kerry's fantasy life in Cambodia, on the sequestered records, etc.--were legitimate and useful inquiries after the votes have been cast, why then did no one pose them to candidate Kerry when they might have made a difference in the election? The blogosphere and the center-right media were full of such demands from August 1 forward, but not a single reporter from mainstream media bothered to pose even one of the Russert questions prior to the vote.
The Russert interview with Kerry is simply jaw dropping. I am beginning to suspect that the reason media power brokers like Russert steered so far clear of the Swift Boat accusations wasn't so
much a matter of fearing the questions were legitimate, but that Kerry may come unglued if he were pressed to answer them. Catching his exaggeration a military resume is one thing - uncovering his grave incompetence - quite another.
"John Kerry in Vietnam/Cambodia" is the gift that keeps on giving.
I spent weeks in the run-up to the election listening to Hugh Hewitt and reading Powerline, Captain's Quarters, LGF, et al on the subject, and it was engrossing.
Did you know that you can stop a "Bush is a moron" twerp dead in their tracks with a "did you know John Kerry claims [insert ridiculous Kerry fantasy here]? It�s lots of fun, especially when you get up a head of steam and it all starts pouring out. The best part is that you can take a shot at the twerps favourite media outlet � The Globe, The Star, The CBC � for suppressing the story.
I hope Kerry keeps on digging. Imagine, a secret ops mission to Cambodia where the spooks use regular Navy as transport (the Navy boys somehow get by the boarder that is patrolled and has concrete pilons wired to the bridge), they toss Kerry a hat as a souvenir, and to top if off they take photos of the event for posterity. What can this clown think up next?
Media types like Russert act like minders for their favourite pols, and the only way Russert can keep up the pretense of being a tough interviewer, is if he glares and browbeats.But not to his fave pols.
Another plausible reason these interviews are PR fluff, is that the reporters are stupid creatures.Russert is that, and more.They either do no prep work, or notify their guests what the topics will be, or act like history begins anew, every Sunday morning at 9am.