Yes, there is a very simple explanation. You see, Rather got caught with his pants down, so to speak, and therefore the liberal media just couldn't very well let ole' Dan make the rest of them look bad because he got caught in a major journalistic lie. It's best, you know, if they don't report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that way it's not like really reporting lies. Just leaving out parts of the truth they don't want us to know.<quoted text>
Oh, sweetie, there's a perfectly simple explanation for all that! That darned old liberal media went to journalism school and learned a bunch of rules and shit, many of which are designed to protect the "mark" from unnecessary embarrassment or harassment. A code of conduct if you will. That's why we turned our heads when Dan Rather tripped up while collecting the very real dirt on l'il George when he got arrested in Alabama for drugs and coulodn't show up for National Guard duty cause he was out pickin' up trash on the highway (all true, but would've required the "tough" questions.)
Now when you go to journalism school in the basement of the mormon church... you are - reasonably enough - not bound by any such strictures. Quite the contrary you're bound only by your three wives and your holy underwear.
But since we're on the subject, let me ask you something. How would you feel personally about only one source of news coverage? Because, as I'm quite sure you know, that is how tyrants in the past brainwashed their people too. Even so, frankly, upon reflection, you'd probably never know much of anything if that were the case because I'm oh so sure that wouldn't be a problem for you.
Am I right? Be honest, carol...from Orlando.