What really irks me is that this sort of rubbish is what Drudge ends up putting on their homepage, when there’s much more exciting stuff out there. Anyways, maybe I failed journalism school, oh wait I didn’t even go, but isn’t it a little outlandish to try and say that CNN journalists—of all networks to choose from—are actually Obama surrogates and everything they say is an official message from the campaign?
Noel Sheppard seems to think so:
Crowley actually said, "[J]ust as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street...I mean, this is what they wanted."
He goes on to say:
Isn’t that nice? The nation’s banking system is collapsing, and members of CNN are not only discussing how it helps Obama, but are admitting that this is what his campaign wanted.
Hey, Tool. The Obama campaign didn’t say squat. You can’t just pick and choose Obama surrogates out of thin air. That’s not how the real world works. Just because someone completely disconnected from the campaign speculates on something, that does not mean you can go and attribute what they say to the campaign. Sorry I failed film school, er I mean journalism school.. Or is it blogging school. Whatever the hell school you went to. I wouldn’t know because your bio page is a 404 and don’t even have a Wikipedia page.
This doesn’t surprise me, though. This guy would probably burn Wikipedia if it was a book.
Matt Drudge, don’t you have any better sources of news to put on your homepage?