Skip to main content

View Diary: Did the Lieberman Campaign Just Break The Law? (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  email that to the new york times (11+ / 0-)

    wouldja please?

    -9.0, -8.3. A rabid lamb since November, 2004.

    by SensibleShoes on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:14:47 PM PDT

    •  the New York Times enabled Lieberman's slur (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ducktape, Shockwave, Rat, bobsquatch, mariva

      It's clear the paper could easily have checked out Lieberman's claim about Lamont -- but didn't. The Times launched the slur, gave it weight.

      So what game is the New York Times playing? Just as surely as folks at Time Magazine knew that Rove was Matt Cooper's original source, but lied about it, and then appealed to the Supreme Court to keep from telling us the truth, I'll bet folks at the New York Times knew Judy Miller was protecting Cheney last summer, too, when she went to prison. All that First Amendment editorializing a year ago was a load of absolute horseshit, every single word it.

      Need I remind anyone that this country was lied into war, and that the "paper of record" played a troubling role in doing that? In my book, if Lamont wins, it's also a repudiation of the Times, which has failed to cover some of the most fundamental and troubling stories of our era (stories we only see discussed in forums like this). No wonder they are afraid of his election. No wonder Fox News is in a state of panic. With Joe Lieberman, they knew the hard questions would never be asked.

      'They ain't lookin' for Osama, ask Biggie's mamma' -- Ice Cube

      by QuickSilver on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:52:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The NYT's news department doesn't give a damn. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ducktape, pb, Rat, mariva
      The NYT's front-page article blathers on for eight paragraphs of uncritical regurgitation of the Lieberman's campaign's slander.

      Only after the average reader has lost interest do they grudgingly offer a one-paragraph response mentioning that Lamont's campaign denied the charges.

      No mention is made of Lieberman's crew's utter lack of substantiating evidence; certainly, no mention is made of the many holes in Lieb's story that we dirty bloggers have pointed out.

      Whoever's supposed to have editorial control over that article ought to be sent to the mailroom where he belongs.

      •  yes, and... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobsquatch

        Only about a zillion bloggers have already corrected them on these very same points on their own blog, including yours truly. Not only can they not research or report anything properly concerning technical matters (or otherwise, it seems...), but apparently they can't even be bothered to read their own blog!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site