Michelle, a correction on story #1, the link is actually washingtonpost.com , "Media Notes: The 'Love Child' Story Turns Into an Orphan ". To be fair, jimpit reported this here on Saturday already, in Message 7193100 . Of course, he put his own curious spin on it, as you might expect. As I don't follow the kinds of rags that print this garbage in the first place, I couldn't comment.
A funny thing about this one is that the information came from the Star but it's not clear they ever published anything about it. Another triumph of Drudge journalism.
After Drudge disclosed the Star inquiry 10 days ago, the allegations quickly made their way into the New York Post, New York Daily News, Washington Times and Boston Herald. They have been mentioned on MSNBC and Fox News Channel talk shows, and joked about by Jay Leno and on "Imus in the Morning."
In an unusual approach, the Washington Times's front-page headline began, "Media abuzz with rumors that Clinton fathered boy." The story began, "Nearly all the newspapers, including this one, and the network newscasts have declined to publish the particulars . . ."
Editor in Chief Wesley Pruden said journalists and political insiders have "been talking about that story for a week. Why should we deprive our readers of knowing what the journalists are talking about? I thought we had a pretty straightforward story."
But Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, described the Washington Times's stance as "Here's a story so slimy we don't print it, but here's what it is." Pruden, for his part, said he would run any negative test results on the front page. The New York Post, which trumpeted the original charge with a screaming banner headline, ran yesterday's follow-up inside the paper.
Drudge said he disclosed the testing "because the DNA chase was happening. The woman was out there making these fantastic claims. . . . The president said he never met her. I reported it all."
Drudge reports it all, sure. "Let's leak it to Drudge, he'll propagate anything". What was Drudge's tag on this, the story of the year or something? Bletch.
As these various sexual bombshells detonate or implode, journalists may be among the casualties. If they eagerly report the allegations, they are accused of wallowing in sleaze. If they ignore the allegations, they are accused of covering up for one side or the other. If they try to check out the allegations, they are criticized for invading people's privacy. But independent confirmation, followed by a decision on whether to publish, may well be the best course in this unsavory environment.
Right. The day local hero Drudge independently confirms something before the Clinton haters here and at other local favorite, the Washington Times, eat it all undigested is the day I start taking impeachment seriously. |
