Drudge has published an internal memo written by ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin. The controversial section:
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Why does something generate scandal when said privately, and not generate scandal when said publicly?
This memo echoes what LAT's Michael Kinsley said last week about the requirement of balance being "often just not justified by reality," and, as Halperin himself points out, builds on what was reported in the Times today. One can make a perfectly reasonable argument that Halperin, et al. are wrong, but why does Halperin get in a "scandal" over it, when others are saying it scandal-free? Is it simply because Drudge splashed it at the top of his website, or is it that it was written privately and can be construed as something meant to be hidden? This is much like how Farnaz Fassihi became a lightningrod for saying privately that Iraq was a mess, while other reporters were publicly saying the same with impunity, or even calling Fassihi's words "an understatement." Why wasn't Walter Rodgers raked over the same coals as Fassihi, and why isn't Kinsley being taken out to the same woodshed as Halperin?
Saturday, October 09, 2004