Hugh Hewitt recalls the lies
of the press in the Katrina aftermath.
Note: the subtitle claims that the article will answer
"Why so many journalists painted an exaggerated picture of the
situation in New Orleans." It doesn't really. There's an assertion that
there was a "deep desire to injure the Bush administration." But there's
no real evidence of that assertion provided in the article,
extremely plausible though it may be. The article closes with a loopy
excerpt from a Dan Rather interview, which can only make one wonder how
this lunatic managed to hold down a job at all, let alone network
Hugh makes an interesting related point on his own blog:
Given this failure to capture the true story in New Orleans even with all of the combined resources of all the MSM working around the clock, why would anyone believe that American media is accurately reporting on the events in Iraq from the Green Zone, in the course of a bloody insurgency fought in a language they don't understand? If the combined forces of old media couldn't get one accurate story out of the convention center, why for a moment believe it can get a story out of Mosul or Najaf?
My answer to both questions: I can't think of any reason. How about you?
- Yay! (See Michelle, ma belle, for background.)
- Interesting mini-story on Tom DeLay's replacement as House Majority Leader: Andrew Sullivan goes all coy for some reason, but the Minuteman lays it out. Comment: Andrew's been furious in the past at leftwing gays "outing" closeted conservative gays. But he can't resist a taking a teeny-tiny bite of the same apple here.
- And if you just want to see a bunch of cool science-related pictures, check out this from the gotta-be-good-for-something BBC. (Via Dartblog.)
- But if you ever just wanted to know what Jane Galt looks like, check out this. But I'll tell you: she looks good.