Guest-blogging at Hot Air, Mary Katharine Ham proffers sound media criticism, noting that “a good rule of thumb is probably that a source’s credibility is inversely proportional to the number of times he’s shown his dong in public:”
And, that’s if you leave aside all the obvious reasons Levi Johnston had to lie about the Palins— hurt feelings over a break-up, lots of money in endorsement deals, and the ever-increasing attention he got every time he spoke up.
I know we play the “imagine” game a lot as conservatives, but imagine a scenario in which an ex-fiance of Chelsea Clinton’s telling tales on “life inside the Clinton family” would have gotten a slot on CNN or CBS at all, much less without a discussion of what the ex stood to gain from said tales. Al Gore’s son’s arrest on drug charges was barely mentioned, but rumors of exactly how much sex a teenage daughter of a former candidate may or may not have had and where? That was news. A former Democratic VP candidate’s life revealed to be utterly fraudulent in the wake of a sordid affair with a loopy cinematographer while his wife had cancer? Not really worth covering anymore— he’s washed up, not a candidate, hardly worth talking about. But the sex-ed policy preferences of a former Republican VP candidate’s daughter working to raise a baby as a single mom should be scrutinized with all the fact-checking skills we can muster!
Over to you, Andrew! [Note: See update below–Ed]
In contrast, the Professor links to Jessica Wakeman of the distaff-oriented Frisky blog,who notes:
Here are four prominent men who have been accused of sexual assault: former vice president Al Gore, filmmaker Roman Polanski, and football players Ben Roethlisberger and Lawrence Taylor. The accusations against each of them are so very different. But they share one commonality: each has received the benefit of the doubt — in some cases, a lot of doubt — that their accuser is a liar.
As Glenn responds, “Well, it’s not like they’re Republican congressmen or anything. Of course, some accusers are liars and others are not. But who gets the benefit of the doubt depends on a lot of factors that don’t have much to do with the likelihood that they’re telling the truth.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s Tom Shales repeats the blood libel against the Tea Party protesters in Washington on the night that ObamaCare was rammed though the House.
As the TV critic for the Post (when he’s not playing wannabe political pundit), it should be easy for him to round-up the footage to back his claims. I’m sure Shales is very well compensated by the Washington Post (is/was he on the JournoList as well?) but an extra $100,000 is a nice bit of walking around money for anyone.
Finally, we spot Chris Matthews beginning the MSNBC 2012 ad campaign a couple of years early, promising that the media will destroy Sarah Palin if she wins in the 2012 primaries. And Matthews, Olbermann, and the rest of the GE-co-owned MSNBC will be leading the charge.
Update: Andrew responds (Safe link for work and sanity; goes to Dan Riehl.)
Update: Stacy McCain adds, “Levi Lied, Sully Cried!”