Postman reports that the media has successfully inflated the non-story of the President's replacement of political appointees: "U.S. Attorneys story is officially the big story". Postman cites the "Project for Excellence in Journalism", which claims that the [non-]story fills "18% of the overall newshole"
Newshole? That's a good name for the hole where the news was supposed to go. One glaring hole is that no "real journalist" has bothered to report what John McKay actually did before concluding that no federal crimes were committed in Washington's 2004 election.
Speaking of newsholes, I e-mailed Danny Westneat on Sunday to ask about his puff piece on McKay:
Just out of curiosity, did you ask McKay to tell you what exactly he did to investigate the allegations of hundreds of illegally counted ballots in King County? Or is this another case of "I don't know and it doesn't matter"?Much to my delight, Westneat used today's column to answer e-mails about Sunday's column. Unfortunately, he didn't answer my e-mail, but he did correct an important error:
John McKay was raised ... in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood. But I wrote that he grew up in ... Queen Anne!Don't ever accuse Westneat of never concerning himself with facts!
But Westneat incriminates himself with this:
McKay wrote to say his being linked to the words "Queen Anne" has destroyed his "street cred."Wow. McKay has ignored my inquiries. But he's not just hiding from the news media. He's willing to communicate with Westneat. But Westneat doesn't report on McKay's efforts to investigate King County's illegally counted ballots.
I wish Westneat had answered my Sunday e-mail directly, but I think today's column answers it indirectly.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 28, 2007 11:47 AM | Email ThisIt is amazing that as accessible as McKay has made himself to these amateur Journalists, that not one (espeically Postman) cannot figure out that the real "newshole" is a timeline & detail about the actual "investigation" McKay claims to have conducted.
What is the precise SCOPE of the investigation and show me documentation of precisely what you (McKay) looked at and who you talked to?
That question is Journalism 101...1st week of class!
Too many moronic LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS have bought & are now selling as fact that a "thorough" investigation was done by McKay & he found no evidence of FRAUD.....even thought FRAUD is not what must found.
Show the Public the investigation file! That will shut skeptics up.....unless of course the investigation stopped at what was revealed during the Trial. Never forget the stonewalling KingKounty did on Public Records requests by Stefan & others. Rossi decided to go to Trial sooner rather than later out of a sense of responsiblity. Had Rossi waited/stonewalled discovery until all records requested had been released & analyzed....the outcome of the Trial would have been different.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 28, 2007 12:16 PMAnd so did Reagan and most Presidents (including Dubya) at THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERM.
What's highly unusual about this case (if you look beyond your talking points) is that:
1) Most we're fired in mid-term
2) WH sent Gonzalez to lie before Congress
3) Gonzalez lied before Congress
4) Gonzalez was caught red handed lying to Congress
The firings raised some eyebrows, lying before Congress will get you in trouble. Dubya dug his own hole on this one.
I stand corrected!
Posted by: ram on March 28, 2007 01:07 PMSo was Bill Clinton. What's your point?
Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 28, 2007 01:10 PMThe fact that the likes of Westneat are coming to the defense of McKay makes the (R) next to McKay's name that much more of a joke.
Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2007 01:14 PMWhere is the "lie?" Answer: There's not one.
If there were, you can bet the dem charged senate witchhunters would have the perjury paperwork drawn up already.
Where's the crime? Answer: There's not one.
Anyone who knows anything about this knows that people in these positions serve at the will of the President.
No lie? No crime? Nah, don't let the fact get in the way. the news media is going to pursue this story because it's a good way to "get Bush."
That's our left wing media hyped up on a bad case of Bush haters syndrome.
Posted by: johnny on March 28, 2007 01:31 PMCome to think of it, most reporters at the P.I. are newsholes. Times, not so much but they have a few.
Posted by: Stewart Mill on March 28, 2007 01:44 PMYou wanted Bill impeached for it. You're not going to fire Gonzalez for it? Is there a double standard for lying before Congress?
if you have an employer who you do not feel is doing a good job you would not fire them and replace them with someone better
TrueSoldier, when was the last time you saw the Govt. act anything like a typical corporation?
So why all the denials, lying, finger-pointing, and pleading the Fifth? If they did nothing wrong they should have no problems testifying under oath before Congress like the former US Atty's did. =)
Hmmm, take your pick
a. Partisan witch-hunt
b. Political gamesmanship by Democrats
c. Waste of time on a non-issue
d. No law was broken
e. All of the above
Gezzz get it right
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2007 02:18 PMHaving worked at the Seattle-branch of the Associated Press, I've met a few Newsholes in the office. Mean, crotchety old bats...
Posted by: Reporterward on March 28, 2007 02:40 PM
As I stated yesterday....the question isn't why not testify under oath. With the dems in full-on witch hunt mode, the question is why not take the fifth? Absolutely nothing to gain by helping with the waste of taxpayer money "investigating" what isn't even a crime.
So it's completely OK when your side replaces all of them for no damn reason except politics, but when ours decides to replace a few due to the same reasons, it's a big deal.
Hypocrits!
Posted by: GS on March 28, 2007 04:45 PMSee, GS has it all figured out, Cato. Hilarious announces she'd fire all Bush appointees, the press yawns. Clinton fires all of them, the press yawns. W fires a handful, "Look what he DID! Why how DARE he!" And Cato falls for it. Har har
Posted by: Michele on March 28, 2007 08:21 PMScooter just "forgot" eh?
Outing an undercover CIA agent, and destroying the front company is ok right?
Scooter should have been tried for treason, along with the rest of the gang, not just lying.
If you want to check out all of Gonzales' lies go to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com and read all the information. You sure won't be back here pretending he was telling the truth, but I know many of the folks here ignore information that burns their ideology at the stake.....
By the way Stefan, I will be helping your readers understand REALITY from time to time. You keep putting up the talking points, and I will disprove them with one hand tied behind my back.
Gonzales lied, and his lawyer took the 5th. The White House was involved, and this in itself may be a crime in more than one way. The head of the FBI in San Diego said firing Carol Lam was indeed for political reasons. But who is he right?
If we may have an elephant sitting on one side of the scales of justice, I think a real investigation should be undertaken..... But I am just a concerned American. If it was a donkey, I would be screaming for exactly the same investigation. Justice is supposed to be fair, not political.
By the way, Clinton did not fire any prosecutors he appointed. Sorry. That talking point goes nowhere.
Posted by: Facts on March 28, 2007 09:29 PMYou're putting up straw men. Yours is a baseless argument. Give it up, little dude.
Posted by: NurseWilliam on March 29, 2007 04:24 AMFact...get your facts straight...Plame did not meet the requirements under statute of being UNDERCOVER...therefore there was no "outing" and no law broken....let alone treason. This was proven by the indepenedent prosecutor! You know, the same one who railroaded Libby for supposedly lying to cover up something that even he concluded was not a crime.
So...to help us understand "reality"...you first must understand reality.
Please keep hanging out here....you may learn reality over time.
Posted by: drw on March 29, 2007 05:28 AMAnd how many times did both Bill & Hillary tell the prosecutor I can't remember or recall??
It was ok for them right, but not Libby.
Got-ya again fool.
But "please" keep trying.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 29, 2007 06:45 AMTake something unusual mix it with a denial that usually going to lead to some sort of investigation. A brief investigation says said person is lying, scandal ensues.
Words of Wisdom from this "scandal":
If your going to lie to Congress be sure you have the paper trail to back up your lie.
Cato, have you ever been under the scrutiny of people wanting to you to hang yourself at every turn? Have you ever been under oath and had an attorney try to twist every word into a thousand nuances to prove the attorney's point? I have been under that duress, and while I thought I knew what I knew pretty well, it sure sounded different under cross.
I bet Gonzales was one that wasn't ready. Like Darcy Burner, for another example. George Allen is another example, and you could even say McGavick.
Some people play well to the big stage and some don't. I wouldn't read anything sinister into Gonzales, IMO. That is, if you aren't trying to be ornery again, and in that case, blast away.
Posted by: swatter on March 29, 2007 12:44 PMFunny, I kind of feel the same way about Bush and he's been President for six years now. But that's a different topic all together.
Gonzales is/was a practicing Attorney and served as General Counsel for Dubya in Texas. He was once even considered to replace O'Connor on the Supreme Court. One would hope the guy who is the Atty Gen. would be ready for the big time.
Swatter, I think your argument holds very little water due to the fact that it's pretty much expected you're going to be grilled when you appear before Congress.
Personally, I think Gonzalez lied on purpose since it's pretty hard to forget a 30 min meeting you attended where you signed off on a move that was guaranteed to be highly controversial (it had never been done before). It's especially controversial since the Justice Dept. knew (as documented in the emails)they could pass over Congress for the subsequent US Atty approvals.
"If your [sic] going to lie to Congress be sure you have the paper trail to back up your lie."
Or get Sandy Berger to steal the documents for you so the paper trail vanishes. Right, Cato, old knob?