Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Geraghty:
Blogger Wizbang notes that John Kerry's latest attack on Bush, charging that the President has admitted he would "privatize" Social Security, is based on some shoddy New York Times reporting. (I can hear the jokes now "is there any other kind?")
Suskind did not attend the event he got the quote from. Further, it was not televised, it was a private event and there were no transcripts available. Yet he reports the quote as fact.
Suskind does not explain how he got the controversial quote so accurate but does say about an earlier quote "According to notes provided to me, and according to several guests at the lunch who agreed to speak..."
So Suskind got "notes provided to him" and that was good enough to run such an important quote. I hope Bill Burkett was not the source. Is this what passes for reporting at the Times today?
|
Your beef is the weakest thing ever. Please.
Quote:
Oh, and who is Ron Suskind that the New York Times is having write a 10 (web) page story on Bush just days before the election? He is the author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill.''"
What do you think the odds are that the NY Times would let John O'Neill write a piece on John Kerry next Sunday?
|
Suskind is a journalist. O'Neill is a partisan hit man. The fact that Suskind has previously reported facts unfavorable to the White House does not make him biased. The NYT still runs Judith Miller's work, notwithstanding her WMD-related work before and during the war.
__________________
It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
