Manipulating the MSM was easy once they'd become addicted to sources. Why bother walking around town or looking through dusty records or
thinking when sitting on your ass with a phone cradled between ear and shoulder, pecking away at a keyboard is so much easier.
News, right up to the highest level is now mostly gossip, a tale repeated by two 'independent' people as confirmation. Rove's "confirming source" defense illustrates how many reporters have become automatons: mindlessly, they turned to the leakers to confirm the leak. Exposed, deposed, and jailed, our journalists have learned nothing.
Today, Bloomberg is running gossip as "News and Commentary: Top Worldwide." The story does not contain a single new fact.
It is an analysis of speculation.
All gossip is motivated by either (or both) of two purposes: inflate the ego of the snitch (Gannon/Guckert) or promote an agenda. Whistle-blowers are exceedingly rare;
leaks, however, are common and the MSM is too focused on profit to care if they are being used.
Witness today's Bloomberg story titled Cheney May Be Entangled in CIA Leak Investigation, People Say. Even the title is absurd. Bloomberg is so oblivious to the filthy paradigm driving their product that "People Say" makes the headline without a second thought.
Here's Bloomberg's attributions:
- "according to people familiar with the probe"
- "according to the people"
- "the people said"
- "according to lawyers involved in the case"
- "one lawyer intimately involved in the case
- "White House officials and Bush supporters"
Not an ulterior motive in the bunch, I'm sure. These "people" and "lawyers" and "supporters" undoubtedly broke the law out of the goodness of their anonymous hearts.
Further down, Bloomberg accidentally injects some hilarity into the story with this line:
"There have been virtually no leaks out of Fitzgerald's office, and even the subjects of his investigation are unsure about his intentions..."
That grand jury has more leaks than the men's room at Giants Stadium during halftime.
To Bloomberg's credit, they do identify a few sources:
- "Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokesman, declined to comment"
- "Randall Samborn, a Fitzgerald spokesman, declined to comment"
- "Calls to Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, and Joseph Tate, Libby's lawyer, weren't returned."
Gossip.
For a few months, I had the fascinating experience of hanging out with a full-fledged rock star. From my new perspective, I quickly learned that most of what I'd heard about this person was utter nonsense. And I saw something else: he and his bandmates traded gossip about other rock stars. Their's was an informed speculation, based on rumors from 'insiders,' but it was still speculation.
And this is how we, the readers fall into the trap. Bloomberg's (and others') gossip sounds better than ours because they get it from unlisted phone numbers and private meetings. But it is still just gossip, further distorted by speculation based on a dubious assumption that the information is true.
Finally, any analysis of Bloomberg's fluff piece would not be complete without the following topic sentence, just 8 paragraphs after claiming "Cheney May Be Entangled in CIA Leak Investigation, People Say:"
"There's no indication Fitzgerald is considering criminal charges against the vice president." So why exactly am I supposed to read this?