Sunday, March 27, 2005
The unconscionable cynicism of whoever distributed a one-page unsigned memo to Republican senators last weekend. It told them that this would be a great political issue that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support is essential for midterm elections in 2006, according to the Washington Post's Web site.The existence of this anonymous memo was initially flacked by ABC News, which has backed off its original assertion of the memo as a Republican policy statement. Power Line blog reports:
ABC first reported the memo as a bombshell that disclosed Republican strategy. Now it says that the memo "discussed a republican bill" and was "distributed to [some] repulbican [sic] senators." Whatever ABC may think of the "politics of the Shivo [sic] case," the network admits that it knows nothing about who authored and distributed the memo.Even the Washington Post, which further spread the story has admitted it has never even seen the memo.
When asked why the memo had not been seen, [The WaPost's] Kaiser said, "Good question. ... Mike [Allen, the Post writer who wrote the story] is not here now so I can't confirm my hunch that his sources read him the memo but didn't give him a copy. That happens quite often these days."An unsigned, unseen memo, distributed by an unknown person to Republican senators, which depicts the GOP taking a particularly cynical political advantage of this life and death issue. Can you spell "dirty tricks"? Did ABC, The Washington Post and now the San Antonio Express-News learn nothing from Dan Rather and his fake National Guard memos?
Actually, it's worse than that, if you re-read the SAEN editorial. It's obvious that they are fully aware of the dubious origin of the memos: "...whoever distributed..." - "...unsigned memo...". Yet this editorial deliberately inserts this unfounded canard in a place where the reader will be lead to the conclusion that it was, indeed, generated officially from the Republican Party.
I am a firm believer that most instances of liberal media bias are subconscious, deriving from the left-wing ideology of the reporters and editors who vastly outnumber conservative members of the mainstream media. It is rare indeed to see a blatant, conscious manipulation of facts. Yet here we see the SAEN repeating an unfounded canard in a context which is intended to mislead their readers.
The SAEN editorial board should be ashamed.