I was thinking, right before I read the Krugman piece noted in the last post, that it's not too far from caricature to say that if Obama says something that a few loudmouths insist is offensive, no matter how faux their outrage, the MSM will do three days' worth of stories on the theme, "Did Obama step over the line?" And if McCain pays for and approves a TV ad that spouts a lie about Obama, the MSM will do three days' worth of stories on the theme, "How much does this hurt Obama?"
Along the lines of that thought, here's a clip from TPMtv/Veracifier that I caught yesterday:
Now, it's arguable that a man's reputation, built up over the years, should count for something. On the other hand, it's also fair to ask, given how droolingly eager the Villagers are for "access," how much of this reputation is merited, and how much of it is pure, manufactured image?
[Added] Another example: The NY Times's editorial page, the über-bogeyman as far as the right is concerned, has a piece today decrying McCain's latest ads, and kudos to them for having the stones to call a lie a lie, but notice how it begins -- from the assumption that John McCain was a good guy up until recently.
No comments:
Post a Comment