MSM "Meth Mouth"

Just another reason that confidence in the media is at an all-time low, and deservedly so. According to this piece in Editor & Publisher, there is "serious doubt on whether either newspaper took sufficient reasonable care in evaluating the chain of transmission by which they received the Kerry [military records] documents."

Apparently, standard form 180 can be filled out artfully, to allow for the production of some documents and not others. Wonder if the documents would have been President Bush's National Guard Records -- would they have encountered such an, ahem, loose standard of scrutiny?

Just another sign of the media's bias, and its moral decay. Kind of like this -- as, with nary a qualm, the New Yorker glorifies a spy responsible for American deaths in Vietnam.

Or this story, from yesterday, about repeated failings on the part of the FBI in the run-up to 9/11, during 2000. Note the conspicuous absence of any linkage between the events and the incumbent president at the time (Clinton, that is). Wonder if the same would have held true had the events being reported taken place in 2001 (Bush years), instead? My particular favorite quote in the story comes from 9/11 commission member Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general during the period in question -- an important "detail" tactfully omitted by the Post. She thinks there is "quite a bit of work left to be done" by the FBI. Well, she should know, having basically run the cabinet department charged with supervising the Bureau (remember, her nominal "boss" was the barely competent, we're-desperate-to-find-a-woman-to-run-Justice pick Janet Reno).

Seems to me that a significant part of the MSM is afflicted with the journalistic equivalent of "meth mouth".