ABC's Mocking "Oh, Matt!!!" Post, Claiming Drudge Had Gotten His Story About Obama's VP Decision Wrong, is Vanished Down the Memory Hole

Here's the big blank empty where the post had been.

On the front page, they duly note the NYT is reporting the selection has been made, but gone all are references to the Page's "sources" claiming Drudge was in error.

Why hide this? Why not just ad an update that the NYT is now reporting otherwise? Or make a note of their previous sources' claims?

Being spun by Obama's people isn't a moral failing. But it is a moral failing to then attempt to cover that up.

Hell, if the Page's "sources" are no longer willing to stand by their previous denials, then that is also newsworthy -- and should be reported. If they are still denying, that too is somewhat newsworthy (though less so, as it probably just means The Page's sources aren't as good as the NYT's or Drudge's).

Either way, I don't see what is gained by the Page pretending they never gave Drudge the Nelson "ha, ha" on this.

Well, I guess I do. The mainstream media is very insecure, and not at all happy about admitting that not only did Drudge get this right (which is bad enough) but that Drudge is now considered a far bigger news-platform by which to leak information than any MSM outlet.

Not really sure how dishonestly helps reverse this state of affairs, though.

Thanks to Brenn.

Related: Kaus on the media covering up for Edwards, when Edwards personally called them to not report the Rielle Hunter story out of respect for his cancer-stricken wife.

The story of the Edwards Coverup, which has only begun to trickle out, is certainly providing a useful civic education in how powerful pols actually go about attempting to influence the MSM. It's one of those situations where unsophisticated people probably think the candidate himself calls the top editor directly to baldly influence coverage, while more sophisticated people know there are institutional procedures in place to protect against that sort of crude personal lobbying. Meanwhile, the really sophisticated people know the candidate himself calls the top editor directly to baldly influence coverage.

The media wishes us to take their every word as verified and true, and yet when their own dealings and decisions are questioned, it's nothing but defensive dishonesty.

Why would the public believe the media about Barack Obama or John McCain when they can't even report accurately or honestly about a subject they know firsthand-- themselves?

posted by Ace at 01:34 AM

| Access Comments