Err, pretty much this, as Ed Morrissey notes:
So let’s get this straight. Dan Rather spent his time in Cherry Hill lamenting the dearth of the tough question and the follow-up. When Walsh got an opportunity, he attempted to provide Rather with exactly what he demanded from the media — a tough question and a follow-up when the first answer evaded the issue. How did Rather and his handlers reward him? They cut off his microphone and made sure he couldn’t finish his follow-up.
And after listening to Rather talk about the supposed spinelessness of the media, how did the audience react to this obvious and hypocritical effort at stifling Walsh’s inquiry? They booed him. Quite obviously, both Rather and his audience engaged in mere posturing instead of truly supporting aggressive reporting.
Does this mean that the audience believes the documents are real? I quoted from Umberto Eco yesterday. When he wrote, “We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity”, he wasn’t kidding!