 |
| FromAlbum4 |
With the discussion about whether once amateur boxer Harry Reid landed aclean blow, made a decentfeint — orhit below the belt — in full swing, no pun intended, here’s my .00002 cents worth:
Why don’t the self proclaimed fact checkers, and insiders who work for newspapers, magazines, journals, etc., go out and, oh, I don’t know, practice some journalism?
Harry Reid said a source from Bain told him Mitt’s little (income) tax secret. Now, it might actually take some work, god forbid, but I doubt it’s impossible to determine if Reid has any relationships with Bain insiders. After making this determination (which could be reported), they could try to get these people on the record. If they won’t speak on the record, that can be reported, or perhaps these august fact-checkers and insiders could offer them anonymity as deep background sources. If I recall, a CNN reporter DID suggest Reid was credible.(note–it wasDana Bash.)
One thing that I’ve seen over my lifetime (I’m 47) that’s troubling is that the already rather cozy relationship between journalists and the people they’re assigned to cover has really gotten into dangerous territory. Maybe I’m naive, but it struck me and not in a good way when Tim Russert testified in the Scooter Libby trial that he assumed conversations with politician were off the record…because in the not so distant past I’m pretty sure the rule of thumb was the opposite.
One more thing. I posted comments saying pretty much the same thing atThe Washington Monthly andThe Reality Based Community, and at the latter, “Cardinal Fang” responded with a good point — Rachel Maddow reported onAugust 3rd that Mitt has a history of being deceptive regarding his income tax filings…
What’s the line? It would be irresponsible not to speculate, or something like that…