Mimicking NBC's Matt Lauer on "Today" with Tom DeLay a few weeks ago, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz chose Monday to address a number of political scandals in America, all of them of course dealing with Republicans.
Yet, there was a brewing campaign finance scandal conspicuously absent from Kurtz's list. Need a hint what it might be?
Maybe Glenn Reynolds' comical quip will help: "Hsoot, it's on the tip of my tongue..."
Yep. Nowhere was Norman Hsu to be found. Instead, here's what concerned Kurtz (emphasis added):
As Army Gen. David Petraeus's long-awaited testimony last week failed to sway the debate over the war, partisans on both sides castigated the media for what remains a blurry picture of Iraq. Why, they ask, can't journalists cut through the fog and deliver an accurate portrait of how the unpopular conflict is going?
This frustration with journalism extends to a slew of other controversies. Is Sen. David Vitter being truthful in denying involvement with a New Orleans prostitute who was paid by Hustler magazine? Is Sen. Larry Craig dissembling when he denies soliciting sex in a men's room? Did Alberto Gonzales give faulty testimony and make misstatements about various Justice Department controversies or is he a liar?
Why can't news organizations resolve these disputes? Are they afraid to take a stand? Or is there no realistic way to do what the critics demand without becoming partisans?
I've got another question, Howie: Why can't news organizations ever fully discuss Democrat controversies with a similar comprehensiveness and attention given to Republican scandals?
And, maybe more important given your role as a media analyst, why can't you?
