Warning: include(/home/www/instapundit-archive/ad.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/joyent-copy/home/www/instapundit-archive/archives/016660.php on line 152
Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/www/instapundit-archive/ad.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/usr/share/php') in /home/joyent-copy/home/www/instapundit-archive/archives/016660.php on line 152
July 20, 2004
THE KERRY CAMPAIGN has shed Sandy Berger but Ed Morrissey says that the New York Times is spinning the resignation.
Meanwhile Mickey Kaus comments on the Times treatment of the original Berger story:
A-16: Even cynical New York Times-bashers must be amazed that that is where the paper ran the news of the Sandy Berger criminal investigation. ... I guess they wouldn't want to bump that late-breaking piece on untucked shirttails from the front page. ...
[They're untucked to make more room for secret documents! It's related! -- Ed. Try to be serious about this, please.]
And Tom Maguire is looking at the not-even-good-enough-to-call-anemic coverage of the Joe Wilson implosion by CBS.
What could possibly explain such a thing?
UPDATE: How bad has it gotten? The Times is recycling corrections about the State of the Union. ("The urge to misquote President Bush is apparently irresistible. But doesn't the Times employ editors anymore?"). Sheesh.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Meanwhile, it's noted that the Washington Post was describing Berger as a "top Kerry adviser" back in May, but is now calling him an "informal" advisor. What gives?
Reader Jonathan Bailey has a related observation:
If you think the NY Times placement of the Sandy Berger story was questionable, the LA Times placement should certainly raise an eyebrow. It's in the "In Brief" section. In Brief indeed, though I had always thought it was plural, "briefs". Must have been a Freudian slip.
This whole national security thing threatens to become a "wedgie issue" for the Democrats!