Years ago - long before Obama's inauguration, when most Congressional Republicans' memories conveniently seem to begin - I remember a news outlet receiving harsh criticism for what was seen as biased reporting. CBS Evening News reported on leaked documents that seemed to call then-President Bush's National Guard into question.
As it turned out, the documents proved to be phony.
As a result, many conservatives blasted Dan Rather and what they derisively renamed "C-BS" for trying to derail Bush's reelection campaign. Rather, if I'm not mistaken, eventually lost his job for reporting on what he thought was news.
Fast forward to today. At the height of the Benghazi "scandal", ABC News reports that leaked e-mails show the White House scrubbing references to terror in the talking points about Benghazi. That ends up being untrue.
Source
It's true that ABC News was simply doing its job of informing the public of what they thought was news. Moreover, it remains unclear whether this incident betrays biased reporting at ABC. Nevertheless, both CBS and Dan Rather were forced to apologize for their reporting on information from untrue leaked documents.
Where are the calls for the heads of ABC executives' heads on platters, and when will ABC issue similar apologies for reporting untrue information?
Source
It's true that ABC News was simply doing its job of informing the public of what they thought was news. Moreover, it remains unclear whether this incident betrays biased reporting at ABC. Nevertheless, both CBS and Dan Rather were forced to apologize for their reporting on information from untrue leaked documents.
Where are the calls for the heads of ABC executives' heads on platters, and when will ABC issue similar apologies for reporting untrue information?
No comments:
Post a Comment