If Rush is such a bigot, why are the only quotes used to prove it complete lies? The book you attributed the quotes from Rush sources its material to a Media Matters report (Meet the New Rush, Same as the Old Rush, which is available online). However neither of these quotes came from that report. This book put out those quotes and provides no source for these two disturbing quotes. They were made up by a blogger. Shame on you for lynching Rush with false quotes.
How do you defend the indefensible?
My record is clear throughout my years in this post.And if it hadn't been before, it sure is now.
These slanderers are starting to get scared by the thought of lawsuits. Imagine how many lawyers Rush can hire.
when is he going to sue these dorks, that’ll get their attention.
I just want Tawana Sharpton and Hymietown Jackson, among others, sued for a billion dollars apiece.
They don’t call it the Kansas City “Red Star” for nothing!
He is correct only to the extent that The Star or KansasCity.com didn't write it but they too failed to fact-check what was written.
Didn’t Dan Rather try this sort of defense?
I recall Whitlock being on the right side during past racial controversies. Oh, well.
Kansas City? I thought it was a St. Louis team Rush was going to buy?
This statement covers a large percentage of what's wrong with modern "journalism". Many of the smears published by the leftists in the MSM are covered by this clause. It is libel to print a blatantly false statement attributed to the target. However, when you print: "Joe Blow said, "the blatantly false statement", you are protected from libel damages. The next reporter then can say "the newspaper reported "the blatantly false statement". And by the third revolution, it becomes unattributed "news".
The "fake, but accurate" defense.
The Star was once a respected publication.
The writer is far too timid in his criticism of Whitlock, but I don’t know that you’re being fair. He questions Whitlock’s judgement for using questionable sources, but notes that all ethics requires is to cite the source, which is true.
Instead of making this into a he-said-she-said, he should criticize Whitlock more vociferously for using such a questionable source.
I like Whitlock and I believe he wrote exactly what black athletes believe.
They live in their own little cocoon where facts don’t penetrate the blanket that their handlers keep them in.
In other words, Obama voters.
Whitlock is an idiot anyway. I haven’t read any of his crap since he took the Chiefs to task for not signing Jeff George when he was a free agent.
Well, isn’t that special. I just tried posting a comment but their server is currently “unable unavailable to process requests”.
I don’t really see him as defending Whitlock. What I did read was Donovan basically saying that he disagrees with Whitlock’s sources, since they were not checked, and that because he used these questionable sources, his argument was pretty much nil. Another couple of things I noticed as well, was how Donovan mentioned that both Rush and Whitlock are clearly misunderstood by those that criticize them. I’ve seen this to be the case many times when it comes to Rush. I don’t know that much about Whitlock so I can’t really say much on him. I think you’re reading something that really isn’t there, as are several people here.
Donovan isn’t using the “fake but accurate” scam that Rather used. What he’s said is that Whitlock used a type of source that he, himself (Donovan) wouldn’t use. How does that equate to Rather’s “fake but accurate” reporting?