Posted on 04/18/2008 12:52:21 PM PDT by DesScorp
On April 7th, you again devoted a substantial part of your show to the claim of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that I was behind his prosecution. Your continued coverage of this issue raises questions about your journalistic standards and those of MSNBC and NBC. During your broadcast, Mr. Siegelman referred to Ms. Dana Jill Simpson as a “respected Republican political operative,” a reference it seems you accept because of the frequent attention you give her in your broadcasts.
Have you, during your coverage of Ms. Simpson, ever actually looked into her claims? For example, have you ever asked her what campaigns she worked as “an operative” with me?
And if so, did you check out what she said by calling the candidates who were my clients or their campaign managers to ask if she was involved in those campaigns? Did you review campaign expenditure reports to see if her name appeared as a paid operative? Or did you check with the DeKalb County Republican chairman or activists (such as the Moore campaign chairman, an effort she told the Judiciary Committee she was active in) to see if she really was a “respected Republican political operative?”
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
“it appears MSNBC hung its entire story on the fraudulent testimony of a con artist.”
And this is new in what way.
Do you expect anything different?
You would have think they would have learned from CBS’s “fake but accurate” fiasco.
I saw Karl Rove give a speech at a college a few weeks ago on C-SPAN. I don’t know why the man isn’t running for office.
There’s a reason media articles are called stories. That’s what they are most of the time. Stories. A reporter is nothing more than a storyteller when it comes right down to it. He has a limited number of facts to work with, and from those facts he must weave a tale that will hold the reader. Some of the facts the reporter has are accurate; some are not. But either way, the facts are not the story. The story lies in the inferences, the color, and the spin. These are what reports are paid for, and their job – their sacred oath – is to make the news pop. It has to sing. It has to thrill. Without all that, it isn’t really news to anyone.
IMHO - Jane
God bless him all the way.
At least Rove didn’t let it stand.
hahaha! excellent word picture by Rove...
I’m sure MSNBC will immediately and publicly apologize for their inexcusably shoddy journalism, and spend as much time exonerating Rove as they spent attacking him.
Heck no! The media believe they are infallible. Dick Cheney stated at the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner that on Wednesday he went from meeting one infallible person (the Pope) to meeting with thousands (the journalists). I love his digs at the press!
Wow....
In fact, it seems you believe that the absence of any concrete evidence is itself evidence of the conspiracy. If you don’t have any proof Karl Rove did it, that absence is proof enough. I am that good.Bwahaha.
Rove by his very association with Bush, Republicans in general, and his stolen victories makes him a suspect, no matter how outlandish the charges.
I rarely watch or read the MSM anymore; and when I do, I do so with a jaundiced eye or ear.
They ARE such a bunch of liars.
Dan Abrams, go sit in the corner because you suck and so does your whole "news" channel.
Stolen Victories?
I've caught Dan Abrams talking about this issue in an accusatory way. I hope this article puts him in his place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.