Hmmmm…interesting. How is it that the Hair Boy on The Corner knew about the Kurtz piece on Leopold — at least by 7:35 pm ET last night — when Howie’s piece was only published this morning at 7:42 am ET this morning, according to the WaPo’s own time stamp?
Unless, of course, Byron York has become a source of "Wurlitzer Wisdom and Pundit Perspective" for Howie’s columns.
Which makes some sense when you count how many times Howie discussed how most of the major liberal blogs handled the story — with caution, with skepticism, with warnings to readers that they were unable to substantiate it, and the like: not one mention from Howard Kurtz, nor have I been able to find any such mention from Byron York.
You want to talk intellectual dishonesty? Peter Daou has a great run-down on the whole mess that is Kurtz’ article this morning.
But none of this explains how York knew about the Kurtz piece. Unless, of course, you factor in what Jeralyn learned yesterday: that it was Rove legal spokesperson Mark Corallo who fed Howard Kurtz the phone number of Truthout’s Mark Ash. (And isn’t this starting to sound like a horribly written soap opera at this point?)
Now I’m not one for tin foil hats and conspiracy theories. It’s just not my nature. But a hatchet job this obvious — trying to paint the whole of the liberal blogosphere with a jaundiced brush, especially when the painting is a joint venture between Byron York, Mark Corallo, and Howard Kurtz, is pitiful at best. (And I have to wonder if Murray Waas was ever contacted for this Kurtz piece — since he’s really been the gold standard of reporting on this case from day one. My guess is no, but I don’t know that for certain.)
Here’s a note to Howie: you want to critique journalism that you find problematic? Fine, that’s your job. You want to make broad, sweeping generalizations about the liberal blogosphere that are demonstrably false? That’s where we have a problem.
I’d say we should all contact the WaPo ombudswoman on this one…but I’m afraid L’il Debbie Howell will just find a way to pretend that we’re all being shrill because one of her reporters got his facts wrong. Again. Awww…what the hell. email@example.com After her Sunday column wherein she said that readers deserve a prompt answer on factual inaccuracies, I’m sure she’d appreciate an e-mail or two pointing this out. Be polite — wouldn’t want her dainty eyeballs to be besmirched or anything.
Return to: Coinky-dink?