Weapons Of Matt's Disagreement

The Anchoress deconstructs Karl Rove’s exchange with Matt Lauer of the Today Show. After quoting the relevant exchange, plus a quote from President Clinton in 1998, when he too attacked Saddam Hussein and promoted regime change, she writes:


Rove is right, but he is wasting his time trying to get anyone in the media to admit that they were complicit in the building of a false narrative established for political considerations. But what I think is interesting is how malleable Matt Lauer can be on the issue of “consensus.” For close to a decade, he has accepted the notion that a “consensus” on “man-made global warming” has outweighed any and all differing opinions. Under no circumstances was credibility conferred upon questioners, even though “there was disagreement!”, serious disagreement, with the narrative.*

But now, in the case of Rove, and Bush, and Iraq and WMD, suddenly, “consensus” doesn’t mean much, because “there was disagreement!”

Hey, Matt, psssst! On AGW: “there was disagreement!” Real disagreement! Please tell Al Gore.

And while you’re telling Al Gore that “there was disagreement!” please ask yourself if all that breastbeating you and your co-horts did re “not asking enough questions in the lead-up to the Iraq war” may not come back to haunt you, in hindsight, on the “manmade global warming crisis.” And, ummm…on the Great Obama Hope & Change Presidency of Miracles, Signs and Wonders campaign hype, too.

The Media Double Standard continues: “Consensus” settles all doubt. “Consensus” trumps all questions, and reveals those who doubt to be morons. Except when suddenly it doesn’t.

That is all.


Ed Morrissey also recently noted the media’s incredible double standard on their coverage of AGW versus WMDs, which Ed and I discussed on the latest edition of Pajamas’ weekly show on Sirius-XM. Click here to listen.

Related: “Memo To Chuck Todd and NBC: Your Science Coverage Is Awful, Too.”


Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member