I don’t know why conservatives are all upset about the media and their obsession with Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident. It’s not like they have demonstrated any bias about covering these types of events and their aftermath.
I’m sure the media would be just as concerned if say the Vice President had attended an illegal fundraiser at a Buddhist temple and two Buddhist nuns admitted they destroyed a list of donors and other documents because they thought the information would be embarrassing.
The media would demand impeachment if the White House had worked for months to cover up secret activities going on in Oval Office, lied to the press, the public and a grand jury.
Sorry, I forgot.
Of course the media would demand answers if the First Lady lied about delaying for 30-hours the release of a suicide note to the authorities. Especially if a White House document recorded the First Lady as saying “they should have a coherent position and should have decided what to do before they told the president [and the media].” And that same First Lady would have no future in politics if she told investigators documents they had subpoenaed were missing and then mysteriously six-months later they were found in her book room.
But none of those involved an accident were lives were in danger. Surely the media would never let people forget if prominent politician had been driving a young lady home after a party one night when the car went into a pond and the passanger died. The press would rightly be outraged if the politician had left the woman in her car, talked with some friends, called his attorney and fell asleep all before he called police and rescue workers the next morning.
Oops, my fault.
I guess with all these examples we would not expect a major television news magazine to run with unsubstantiated rumors about a sitting President from a hostile source with a changing story during an election year. But beyond that, they would no longer push the story if their main evidence was shown to be a fabrication. I mean it’s not like they would come out and say something like, “fake but accurate.”
Sorry, I just can’t seem to get any of these right.
The leading morning news show would of course dismiss as trash a mostly anonymously sourced book accusing the President of numerous crimes and assorted affairs, especially after the same show refused to cover a book dealing with the military service of the President’s opponent written by eyewitnesses to the events in question.
Oh, they did three straight days on the first book and none on the second?
I’m sure there is some pattern to all of these, but I just can’t place my finger on it.