Gee, I wonder if the "objective" mainstream media will nail this reporter's hide to the wall if it becomes obvious that he lied through his teeth to lick the hand that feeds him?

Oh, I'm sure they will--about the same time I win a street fight with Roy Jones, Jr.

What did he do that was so wrong? All he's doing is exercising his right to make a capitalist living, and expressing his opinions. You know, just b/c he's a journalist doesn't mean he's given up his First Amendment rights!

And he didn't lie. After all, it takes premeditation to lie, like Dubya did about WMD.

And even if he did, how many people died?

I don't know, for certain, who will win this election. I do know who has lost: the mainstream media. They have been so blatantly in the tank for John Kerry the mask of impartiality will never cover their left-wing bias again.

Lied and died? Many, many people in Vietnam died because of lies Kerry told when he got back. That's why he's so popular with Vietnamese immigrants to the U.S. -- who support Bush by 9 to 1.

According to Elliot's statement today Kranich did lie, or at least twist his statements beyond recognition and context to further his own political agenda.

Hugh's permalinks are broken, but it sounds like the Boston Globe is now disputing the claim that Kranish was commissioned to write a foreword for the Kerry-Edwards book. So it sounds like Kranish's mistreatment of Captain Elliott was probably the result of sloppy, biased reporting rather than direct shilling.

http://www.hughhewitt.com

Anyone heard anything about this? Did Drudge get this one wrong? It sounds like either way the Captain Elliott's sticking by his original story.

Hugh Hewitt just made a new post--it appears that Drudge got the story wrong: Kranish has no financial ties with Kerry. I'll retract my suggestion that the man lied for pecuniary reasons, though he might still be lying: either her or Elliott is.

Either "he" or Elliott is, obviously.

Drudge doesn't have to be lying, anyone who has ever put words to paper for money is familiar with deals that fall through. Given that Kranish is the author of an authorised Kerry bio, the most likely explanation is that the Dems pulled the plug on the deal when the relationship came into the open.

"We'll have to wait and see if the rest of the media has the cojones to put one of their own under the conflict-of-interest microscope."

That's what I love about this website: the deadpan humor.

Of our two hometown papers, the Boston Globe can generally be counted on to support Kerry, and the Boston Herald to be critical. An interesting paradox, as the Globe is the so-called 'thinking' man's paper (the true sophisticates in Boston still read the NYT), while the Herald is the blue-collar tabloid. But isn't Kerry supposed to be the champion of the little guy? Not here, where they know him.

Herald = Murdoch = right wing rag.

Now who do I believe, the Boston Globe or some guy I've never heard of?

I'll take some guy I've never heard of.

The Boston Globe was also the paper that credulously ran hoaxed photos purporting to show American soldiers raping Iraqi women.

Don't much feel, absent some compelling disclosure from them otherwise, like giving the Globesters benefit of the doubt on this one.

--furious

"Fool me onc