... And what would be wrong with that?
November 04, 2009 1:50 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher, in an online Q&A:
non-election question: Given Liz Cheney's sudden prominence (man, nepotism in DC never ceases to amaze me), I'm curious as to why none of you reporters are asking her questions re: her recent comments about Obama's trip to Dover. She said that Bush routinely made the same trip and didn't "stage photo ops." A) she flat out lied - Bush never went to Dover, B) he couldn't have had photos taken because of the Pentagon policy at the time and C) Mission Accomplished, anybody? Ultimate photo op. What gives? Or is being related to Dick sufficient to protect her from questioned?
Michael A. Fletcher: If we begin questioning Liz Cheney that way, then we would have to do the same with conservative (and liberal) commentators who make all kinds of charges every day. It is their way of making a (great) living. Some comments, I like to think, sink under their own weight.
So a Washington Post reporter says the media doesn't question Liz Cheney about her lies because if they did so, they would have to do the same with other commentators.
What's missing? Any explanation of why that would be a bad thing.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Also note the presumption of equivalence in commentators.
At the Washington Post, you have a plethora of right wing hacks (take Bill Kristol, please), and some guys who are "liberals' because they had long hair and flashed a peace sign or two back in the 1960s (take Richie Cohen...please!).
~
And some comments get more credibility than what they deserve because they aren't challenged by the MSM!!!
There's no reason for Liz Cheney to have the credibility she has. She was never in a position of authority in politics, and now she's pushing her father's stories like they're her stories and her experiences. She shouldn't know some of the stuff she claims to be educated about, but she talks like she's a ventriloquist's puppet being worked by Dick Cheney.
Fact check spokespeople for the Democrats and the Republicans, MSM. Go ahead. We can stand the scrutiny.
Claiming that there's good reason to just let false comments sink on their own is nonsense. It's CYA stuff that is contradicted by recent history. We have plenty of evidence that ignoring nonsense is not a good thing, and no evidence whatsoever that reporters and journalists should be mere transcriptionists, parroting back what others say without evaluating those comments for honesty!
Ironic, that. Apparently the CIA's code name for Dick Cheney was "Edgar," as in "Bergen," because they felt that G.W. was his dummy.
Some jokes are far too easy.
Michael Fletcher has no business being anywhere near a newspaper, except to wrap the fish he should be selling in one.
Randy
This would be a typical answer if Fletcher were a politician.
As a reporter that answer is plainly insane. It begs the question "why do we need reporters at all? Yes, why not let all the commentators just call your paper and feed the news directly to your copy editor.
If Fletcher were covering a story about a police detective who said, "If we begin questioning this suspect/witness that way, then we would have to do the same with every suspect/witness who make all kinds of false statements every day" Would he not report that detective was not doing his job?