Sometimes I think the MSM is a little like these kids. Many reporters and editors think that if they don’t tell their readers about it, the reader will not find out.
Just a musing sparked by this from Ace writing about the “flood the zone" coverage of Van Jone:
This is definitely true of the New York Times -- the first time the Paper of Record "scoops" the competition that a scandal is brewing, the scandal is already over. (Mostly.)
Why? What exactly do they believe themselves to be accomplishing? They all read Drudge and know that 90% of the news-hawking public reads Drudge, and yet they continue to think that if they just ignore a story they somehow make it go away.
This from the Hot Air Greenroom is outstanding:
Michelle Malkin's roundup/reaction post is also excellent:
The resignation (and coming MSM/left-wing martyrdom) of Van Jones; Obama “thanks him for his service”
There was a day, not too long ago, when the Times and other influential news organizations could kill a story -- could deny the bad guys a win -- simply by ignoring it. Sometimes they still try. But it just won't work anymore.