Byron York of NRO has an evisceration of The Washington Post‘s atrocious Dana Milbank. He takes a Milbank piece lambasting Bush for running negative ads, and finds that it’s nearly point-by-point factually wrong. Again, Milbank and James VandeHei appear to be perfectly willing to swallow DNC talking points without doing one iota of confirming or denying research.
If that weren’t enough, York digs out a 2000 piece by Milbank which argues that worrying about negative campaign ads is pointless and even harmful to political discourse.
Could one say that Milbank was for negative ads before he was against them?
The mainstream media doesn’t even try to hide its bias any longer.
Their work should be counted as contributions in kind to the Democratic party.
It is amazing that the pres really does seem to have abandoned even a pretense of impartiality. Taranto in Opinion Journal’s Best of the Web points out how the NY Times is getting Abu Ghraib into every story it can, no matter how awkward. An article on Rumsfeld’s commencement speech at West Point states reports that the address “made no mention of the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.” Well, why would it? And of course, “Lieutenant Childers died too soon to see the strife in Iraq today, or the photographs of prisoners being humiliated at the hands of American guards in the Abu Ghraib prison.”
WTF?