I think the Eason Jordon case is less important than the Dan Rather case, for obvious reasons. But it seems to have produced the same amount of enthusiasm. At some point this amount of glee is going to be applied towards someone who might actually turn out to be innocent. What then? Well, it’ll kill the credibilty of those who led the charge, and help the reps of those who turn it away. It’ll be a big self-correcting moment, but the self-correcting won’t be the story; the story will be the mistake. Ah HAH!
Good point. And it’s one of the reasons you rarely see me jumping on the scandalwagon until the ride is almost over. I got burned — big mea culpa-time — by John Kerry’s non-affair last year, and I’d rather not do so again.
Happily, Lileks then stops being so serious and goes back to being, well, Lileks:
And so forth, until open war is declared and the New York Times deploys its hunter-killer bots to go back in time and terminate the guy who invents the WWW. I’m beginning to think they would if they could.
Ed Furlong just showed up here on a motor scooter, screaming something about the end of the world. Should I be worried?