Uh huh. Articles announcing that a meeting was scheduled and the subsequently confirming that it took place turn out to be phony all the time.
I would think the media coverage of Palin would have made that clear.
No comparison. Nothing about the meeting articles were sensationalistic or agenda driven.
Did anyone attempt to verify the info with the source before posting this all over the place?
Every time I saw it posted, it was sourced and linked. Of course, the links don't work anymore since they went into the Memory Hole.
These were two very brief paragraphs on the site of a local TV station mentioning a meeting between Obama and Blago on the day after the election. The simpering sycophants of the major media were glued to Obama that day, recording and swooning over his every move. None of them, major or minor, reported an actual or scheduled meeting with Blago -- and at that point the Senate appointment wasn't a major issue, so there was nothing to hide, and no reason for a grand conspiracy or coverup of a clandestine meeting.
The comparison to the Palin coverage was meant to demonstrate how irresponsible the media has become in reporting rumor as fact.
"Verifying the info with the source" means calling the source -- the TV station, and asking the reporter to verify what he/she wrote . It doesn't mean simply posting a link to a story about a meeting that isn't backed up by any other news source. Logic dictates that if an obscure news source reported a meeting that none of the dozens of other larger and well-known sources reported, then there's a high probability that the outlier report is false.
Once again, there are five phone calls by Blago on November 5 described on the 78-page list of charges filed by Fitzgerald, and nowhere is a meeting between Blago and Obama, or any surrogate of Obama, mentioned. At that point, he didn't know (although he should have guessed) that he was being recorded, so there wouldn't be any reason not to brag about the fact, or report the results to his cronies.
All of the above should lead a reasonable person to conclude that there's no nefarious reason for yanking the reports, but simply embarrassment on the part of the station, once the link to the error was broadcast all over the net. The reporter screwed up, and no one caught it before now, because it wasn't important until now.