It appears to make the unfolding scandals phony by saying it would be uncovered by the 24/7 news organizations. Which one should I choose? MSNBC, where the lead evening presenter gets a thrill up his leg at the mention of President Obama? Or CNN, where Candy Crowley interjected herself and lied during the presidential debates? Maybe Al-Jazzeera’s English service. Or how about NBC – maybe it could divert resources from its upcoming Hillary Clinton mini-series.
I suggest Nead just turn on C-SPAN and watch the committees as they are stonewalled by the Obama administration on the release of documents.
Nead states that readers should just “Google” it to get the real story. Does he suggest the Huffington Post? The Daily Beast? The Daily Kos? I recently read a quote on the Internet attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “Anything you read on the Internet must be true.” That is, if we are one of the Rev. Nead’s “intelligent” readers. I believe Nead confuses “intelligent” with uninformed, low-information readers.
Allow me to draw his attention to the facts: It took a hostile but honest press from June 17, 1972, to Aug. 8, 1974 to bring down a president. Does he honestly think that today’s news organizations, in which network presidents have relatives who work for Obama, would actually investigate? Fox News can’t do it all. ...
I read the editorial Nead referred to (“Phony indignation,” Aug. 1), and it contains both pathos and logos, attributes of a good opinion piece. It is a far cry from yellow journalism. There were no “unnamed sources” or unabashed self-promotion, but rather an opinion, on an opinion page.
I have to wonder if the good Rev. Nead gets his information from one of those 24/7 news outlets that has opinion masquerading as news and no longer can tell the difference.