The WaPo Scrapes Bottom

This is a front-page story today.
This is why campaign coverage blows Triassic goats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757_pf.html

 

More Islamojitters conveyed by a man named 'Bacon'? That's not halal.

 

I take it that your objection is that reputable news organizations shouldn't feel they must debunk or validate every piece of crap that can be found on the Internet, that it only spreads them further, and to a point I agree and to a point I don't. The role of sorter of truth/fiction is less exciting than actually breaking interesting stories, but in a world filled with Wikipedia-believing, talk-rado-listening cretins, who better than us to set the record straight? It doesn't mean it will be our only role. And I think it's a judgment call on which rumors we investigate and which we ignore. In this case, I don't have a problem with it. I don't like the headline, though. I think "ties" is a little strong and will misinform people who read no further than the hed.

 

Frank --
My major objection is that all of the crap the WaPo chose to toss across Page One today is 100 percent FALSE. Period. This is a two graf item -- Obama Bedeviled By Lying Crazy People --from a Campaign Roundup on Page A25.

 

Josh Marshall chimes in on the matter:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/059839.php

Not sure if a story like this does more to dispel the "Muslim ties" or gives mainstream credence to the assholes trying to distort Obama's past.

 

I really feel uncomfortable with mentioning some of these black-helicopter e-mails circulating.

Then again, we have the Savages and Limbaughs of the world talking about them on-air, so they've already been "legitimized."

 

Know precisely what you're saying, but mouthings from Mr. Tinfoilhat, and from a guy who hasn't seen his shoes while standing upright for years,
fails to qualify as mainstream legitimacy, for which most of us are thankful.

 

Problem is, Ben, for the millions who listen to either one each day, they'll take it as gospel.

Other problem is, if any of their listeners read the Post story, they'll still believe the kooky ones before believing sourced denials.

 

Don't report it.
Leave it to the radio guys.
Or, if you do, make damn clear that it's bullshit.

 

Seems to me that the story was addressing an issue that is out there -- a lot -- and setting the record straight. I think the Obama campaign probably thought the story and its play was a plus for them.

 

OH, I'm willing to bet you're wrong about that.

 

I re-read the story. I can't see anything that the Obama campaign wouldn't have liked. Obviously, they probably never wish the issue had come up, but the Post story pretty much cleared the air about his religious background and convictions.