That was partly my point. The only reason this guy's "opinion" (albeit negative) was solicited was because he claims to have been a Navy Seal.....however, the AP did not follow what I would consider to be journalistic protocol.....I posted some info on another thread with a link to Jouralism.org and their stated principles, which I will repost, in part, on this thread. Obviously, as you well know, unbelieving scum, the bulk of my criticism was against the AP reporter and the AP for allowing its reporters to behave in the manner which it does....I believe it was the AP that, just last week, was caught in another lie, manufactured boos against Clinton when Bush announced Clinton's hospitalization.
From Journalism.org
http://www.journalism.org/resources/guidelines/principles/purpose.asp
The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society.1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense.....
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment...........
I appreciate your emphasis on verification. But refering to a previous line:
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense.....
Is it practical to do a full background check on everyone who offers an opinion on their pick for president? As Rush says, you are the world's foremost expert on your own opinion. Whether he was a SEAL or not doesn't change that although it may give a boost to the value of this guy's opinion in some minds. The article didn't even mention that he had reached the highest enlisted rank in the service in the law enforcement specialty, according to the roster of a veterans' organization. That was turned up fairly early and I think entitles him to some deference and credibility.
My problem is dragging this guy's name through the mud through 800 posts in two threads BEFORE GETTING THE PROOF THAT HE LIED. Until then these threads are just so much libel.
If it turns out he was not a SEAL, that does not make me wrong, only careful. But if he was one, and it looks like we will know tomorrow, a lot of people have done a lot of damage and I doubt we will see apologies from most of them or from FR administration whom I asked to stop this witch hunt.