I haven't seen this posted here, but over at Huff-Post, is a video of Martin Bashir of MSNBC in his interview with repug consultant (propagandist) Trey Hardin, and Bashir asked Hardin to contribute to the discussion concerning the veteran Navy Seal swiftboaters.
Okay, what develops here is that Bashir asks Hardin what he thought about the comments made by Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose comments basically disapproved of the actions of the veteran Navy Seal swiftboaters. To that, Hardin replied that of course Dempsey must serve Obama, implying that somehow something must be in a fix here.
Almost immediately after Hardin said that, Bashir jumps in and interupts, and states that Dempsey serves the American people, and insisted that if Hardin did not acknowledge that, there was no point in going forward with the interview. Since Hardin did not, and only was concerned with his own mis-statments, Bashir simply cut him off.
Is this the way to handle stupidity? As facts are skewed, or completely ignored, do journalist simply stop the interview?
I must say, in an ideal world, where journalists are journalists, this certainly would be a good solution to stop stupidity in its tracks. However, is this the answer?
I must admit though, that I did get a kick out of this.