I'm still waiting for someone in the MSM to do a story on why the internet is the reason they can't get away with lies anymore.
Not entirely the Internet.
Talk radio is involved, too.
I heard the speech live on the radio and heard the 'ahhh/ooo' when Bush announced Clinton's hospitalization. It was a typical mild shock reaction.
Later heard the news headline that it was "booing." Thought that was odd--not what I heard on the radio.
A couple of hours later, the local afternoon talk radio guy, Mark Belling (WISN1130) got extremely upset over the reporting and attempted to track down the name of the AP presstitute through the local AP office.
AP honcho for Milwaukee told Belling, in effect, to 'stuff it.' That was not the right thing to do.
Drudge was running the original story--and you can see that his story has changed to reflect the AP's retraction. By Monday, this may have some legs.
In any case, while the Internet is very VERY helpful--in this case it was also talk radio.
Yes. The thing that strikes me is, the MSM/LLM still thinks it's the 1970s, and that they can create the news instead of just reporting it (like this nonstory), or that they can bury the news they don't want to come to light (the MSM's reaction to the SBVFT story). They think they still can alter the truth by airbrushing out what they don't like-like when the boos that greeted HR-C at Madison Square in 2001 were edited out (as if the original unedited segments weren't already available online). Between the bloggers, internet news, and talk radio, their power to control the news, if not totally destroyed, has been severely compromised. I have no doubt whatsoever that algore would've been allowed to prevail if it hadn't been for the internet and the outraged activism that it allowed . So why do the MSM reporters not see this? I am forced to fall back on the oldest answer : Maybe reporters and journalists, by and large, aren't very intelligent. Supposedly, they have the second lowest GPAs of any major while in college (the lowest being education majors). Perhaps not-very-bright people with a burning desire to 'make a difference"' (ie, try to slant news in a way that conforms to the PC/leftist crapola they swallowed whole on campus) are what's drawn to journalism-they want to "change society" to conform to the aforementioned PC crapola. They don't-can't-realize that their desire to use reporting as a tool for activism is an insult to the very concept of journalism, which is supposed to be neutral-to let the reader weigh the facts and decide. And they don't realize that their ability to do so ended forever-and over a decade ago! (My apologies to any conservative reporter reading this-and to any liberal journalist (eg Nat Henthoff) who try to report the news in a fair, balanced way.I'm sure there's a couple.)