Call me a grumpy old man, but journalism isn't about lying and
pretending you are something you are not. And that nonsense detracts
from the real stories of voter registration fraud, actual conflict-of-
interest crimes that have resulted in convictions.

As for Hannity, I watched his show a few times with Alan Colmes and
it wasn't bad. I've tuned into his solo show and I find it unmatchable.
I'm not against partisanship, but unrestrained the man makes my skin
crawl.

I will say one thing in his defense: unlike Dan Rather, Hannity does
not claim to be a journalist. He takes pride in saying that he isn't one,
actually. Thus, any "news" that Hannity breaks should be buyer
beware.

Dan Rather, him I hold to a higher standard. I feel sorry for him, to tell
the truth. He so badly wanted that one last big story. There may have
been malice toward Bush, but there was more personal vanity in play
than anything else. What sobers me to the whole affair is 20 years
earlier, with no cable news like we have today and no Internet, that lie
could have turned an election.

Will post more detailed Reagan thoughts when I get home, but a quick
observation I wanted to share. Unlike the Nixon Library which is
exhibit intensive (or at least it was when I visited a few years back)
the Reagan Library is more spectacle.

Air Force One is impressive. That is worth the trip alone. But there is
little in terms of policy and hard history. I expected more meat on the
bones. Presuming the Nixon Library hasn't changed, I should be able
to do more history teaching there.

write it off as a nut bag pulling my chain

*****************

Did you just call this guy a scrotum?

Rich Rice:
10 April 2010 at 2:20am
"-And then, the Acorn worker immediately CONTACTS THE POLICE."

10 April 2010 at 2:34pm
"Did he call the police square away? No. Is that reasonable. Why would he bother dialing 911 because some kook came in with an unverifiable story?"

So, the lesson here is that after reading or hearing only Maddow's biased report, Mr. Rice thinks that ACORN immediately called the police.  After reading the whole report, Mr. Rice now says that it's OK for ACORN to have waited a bit before calling the police.  Isn't it amazing how things change when injected with facts?

Every single news story, be it print or broadcast, has a point-of-view and a story to tell.  Did ACORN commit a crime by telling O'Keefe ways to skirt or even break the law?  That depends.  O'Keefe never had any intention of breaking the law, so it can be argued that any advice given by ACORN was just advice, and legal to give.  Not ethical, but legal.  On the other hand, and maybe one of our fine lawyers can help out here, but if someone actually did follow ACORN's advice and set up a house of prostitution with underaged illegal aliens, can they be charged as an accomplice before the fact?

It's awesome in the future! The food is amazing! I'll be back, I have
some sporting events I need to see a bookie about...

Mike, maybe you should include Jodi as well, since she's the one that brought up Maddow's report about ACORN.  My discussion isn't about weather ACORN should exist or not, but rather the outcry of "biased news reporting" by using biased news reporting as a source.

Bet it all on the Devil Rays winning the World Series 4-1.

Pretty much yep, but I don't agree on the false alligations part.

We can look and see how ACORN itself didn't handle the situation well.  From the outset they claimed that the first report was a falsehood, but there was no denying what was said on video.  Then the story became that it was a "one time only" thing.  Well more videos began showing up from different cities.  From there, it all just snowballed.  For every denial, there was more proof showing up.  Instead of owning the problem, ACORN tried to shoot the messenger.  And the main messenger, Sean Hannity.

Hannity, which even I can't understand the appeal, dug his feet into the story and rode it like a horse.  The more the story played out, the more people saw it.  Did Hannity hype it up?  Damn right he did.  He saw the ratings possiblilities, as well as an ability to put a dent into the democrats and Obama.  Like it or not, a free press is a business.  Gotta pay for the paper, ink, bandwidth and transmission equipment somehow.

Finally the New York Times recognizes it's own lacking in the coverage of ACORN.

If ACORN management would have said from the very beginning "yes there are problems and we will work to fix them", then it would have been a total no story.

As for the yellow journalism, that's why I watch and read a variety of sources for news coverage.  But I'm a news junkie.