It's ime to ignore anything the MSM says about Republican Candidates
Time and again, the media run with poorly sourced, inaccurate, unchecked claims against Republican front runners and send the white toga crowd fleeing.In fact, no claim is too outrageous, too thin or poorly sourced to be checked before it goes to print and no error is seems to warrant a timely, public correction by the mainstream media. When will we grow up and learn to discount it all until there is solid proof of wrongdoing?
Thomas Lipscomb dissects the New York Times inexplicable charges against NJ Governor Christie:
Last night [Friday] the NY Times carried a lede on a digital edition story by Kate Zernicke flatly claiming that according to Wildstein Governor Christie knew about the GW Bridge closing. That was corrected to "evidence exists" in the Page One print story today, with no correction noted that I have seen.
And the internet lit up over the issue, as you know better than most.
Unfortunately you need ANOTHER correction for Zernicke's revise. This time she flatly ledes that Wildstein, "The former Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings at the George Washington Bridge, central to the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, said on Friday" that "evidence exists... ." But if the WSJ Page One story today is correct, Wildstein made no such statement. The statement was made by Alan Zegas, Wildstein's attorney which is a whole other thing. Take a look.
After all, attorney Zegas is presumably trying to get a deal with his client with the prosecutor. And his statement is clearly a PR gesture to that end of mild news value, but not sufficient to make page one of either the NYT or the WSJ, much less merit an incorrect sourcing, if anything ever does.
30 years ago I can see Abe telling his reporter "If Zegas wants to run an ad, send him the rate card. I want to hear from Wildstein."
Now Zernicke and I have had some difference of opinion as you will see if you go to two articles I ran on Real Clear Politics about her sloppy reporting on Kerry's military record.
But if the NYT missed the opportunity, or deemed the move from electronic Bulldog to corrected print insufficient cause to run a correction, you clearly have one now.