Phil. Inquirer editor holds his readers to higher standard than columnist John Yoo
May 17, 2009 12:25 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Philadelphia Inquirer editorial page editor Harold Jackson:
Unfortunately, most of the critics of our contract with Yoo have their facts wrong.
But that happens when your information comes from those bloggers who never let the facts get in the way when they're trying to whip people into a frenzy to boost Web site hits.
Jackson didn't address the fact that in his Inquirer columsn, Yoo hasn't let the facts get in the way of his partisanship.
In his May 10 column, for example, Yoo attacked President Obama for citing empathy as a qualification he will seek in a Supreme Court nominee. But Yoo himself has praised Supreme Court justice Clarance Thomas - Yoo's former boss - for displaying that very quality.
Yoo also argued against the appointment of an "activist" judge - a meaningless label that partisan conservatives like Yoo attach to anyone they don't like. Want proof? According to at least one assessment, the single most "activist" member of the high court is Clarence Thomas, for whom Yoo clerked, and whom Yoo praises enthusiastically.
And Yoo falsely suggested that liberals want President Obama to make a pick "based solely on race or sex" -- something nobody is in favor of. That's just a flatly dishonest description of the opposing view; Yoo grossly exaggerated and distorted views with which he disagrees for the purpose of more easily discrediting them.
It's like trying to discredit John Yoo's views on torture by saying "John Yoo thinks the President should be able to order the crushing of a child's testicles."
Oh. Wait. That wouldn't be an exaggeration at all. John Yoo actually thinks the president should be able to order the crushing of a child's testicles.
Anyway: Harold Jackson, so busy denouncing "bloggers who never let the facts get in the way," couldn't be bothered to address the hypocrisy and falsehoods found in Yoo's column. Apparently the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial page editor think Inquirer readers should be held to a higher standard than Inquirer columnists.
And he wonders why the Inquirer faces a "murky future."
Unfortunately, crazy people all over America still have jobs in the media because they have a certain loyal following. Just look at Limbaugh, you can't get much crazier than that but; he still has an audience.
The same reason why Maureen Dowd has a column in the New York Times.
Yoo also argued against the appointment of an "activist" judge - a meaningless label that partisan conservatives like Yoo attach to anyone they don't like. Want proof? According to at least one assessment. According to at least one assesment? Are you kiding me? I am sure you can find more than one that will differ, is that any proof? NO, that is just someone's opinion.
And Yoo falsely suggested that liberals want President Obama to make a pick "based solely on race or sex" -- something nobody is in favor of. Again, is this dishonesty at it's grandest? All you have to do is look at the comments senators have made on the different shows, they want a woman, preferably a minority.
It's like trying to discredit John Yoo's views on torture by saying "John Yoo thinks the President should be able to order the crushing of a child's testicles." Oh. Wait. That wouldn't be an exaggeration at all. John Yoo actually thinks the president should be able to order the crushing of a child's testicles. Only liberals think in that extreme, no one in their right mind want anything like that unless you are a terrorist, the same terrorists libs wanna protect.
And he wonders why the Inquirer faces a "murky future." And so does the New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Tims, you name it