A mix of erudition and editorial control is a powerful one, after all.
With $800 million you can buy all the erudition you want. As long as you have the publisher's ultimate authority to plant stories, spin facts, and suppress other items, your money is well spent.
Notice how the most recent story about Robert W. Ray never brought charges against Clinton, but now says "he could have". What kind of comment is that from a prosecutor who claims to be independent, didn't bring charges, but wants to gain attention for political office? This story started in the Washtimes, as these kinds of stories do, then gets picked up and laundered by other media to be made more respectable.
Can you imagine prosecutors around the country claiming they "could have brought charges" against people, but didn't, but they are somehow independent... strains credibility to the breaking point.
Imagine how much Robert W. Ray will owe Wash Times from now on...
Here's the rest of the story:
nytimes.com
"Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, belittled the report, saying: "It's not clear what the purpose of the report is other than to promote Robert Ray's Senate campaign and Monica Lewinsky's HBO special. The release of the report is a nonevent. This investigation started as a political process and it ends as a political process."
Mr. Ray is considering running for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate from New Jersey and Home Box Office has been running a 95-minute special with Ms. Lewinsky giving her version of events." |
