Laura Ingraham is a Regurgicon hack. Anything she says can be disregarded.

I think she's Ann Coulter's evil twin.

The not-so-bright one.

Implying there is a bright one? David Brock was once the third leg in an evil triumvirate and got so disgusted with their tactics he committed him self to revealing their lies and tactics. Read "Blinded by the Right."

Then his  "The Republican Noise Machine."

Except that in the freeze-frame above, she looks quite a bit like Ashton Kutcher.

Beach, I think you need glasses ;-)

"CBS canceled Bradley's extensive report on the administration's pre-Iraq war claim that Saddam Hussein was close to developing nuclear weapons."

Now, there's a story I'd like to see.

Laura Ingraham and Howard Kurtz are going to bring nothing but preconceived notions to any discussion of one of the Right's uber-boogeymen, Dan Rather. Might as well go to Bill O'Reilly for an unbiased assessment of Hugo Chavez.

I catch bits of Ingraham's show occasionally on the way in to work in the morning.She just sounds like a miserable human being, not to mention condescending to and dismissive of anybody who doesn't share her weird Christo-Corporate values.

I do not bother to watch any network "news" anymore.

CBS caved to the far right if not to the Bush White House directly, but I think the other networks are similarly compromised as well.

Rather reported the absolute truth. Whether a letter was a copy or the original makes no difference when its veracity and accuracy is documented by the secretary who originally typed the letter in an interview shown on TV and that letter's originality, whether or not it was a copy or an original became the entire case the far right wackos made, not whether it represented the true facts or not. The far right wackos could care less about the truth, only whether something supported their agenda or not.

We no longer have a "free press" nor one that can be depended on for objective reporting. Our media in general has abdicated their responsibility to inform the public, the responsibility that the founders of our country thought important enough to specifically protect in the First Amendment. 

Pete Ross posted:

"Rather reported the absolute truth. Whether a letter was a copy or the original makes no difference when its veracity and accuracy is documented by the secretary who originally typed the letter in an interview shown on TV and that letter's originality, whether or not it was a copy or an original became the entire case the far right wackos made, not whether it represented the true facts or not. The far right wackos could care less about the truth, only whether something supported their agenda or not."

____________________________________________

Rather reported the "absolute" truth?  He absolutely reported a slimy story on the basis of false documents and accusations from partisan hacks.  I guess that's OK when the target is the right wing.  Journalistic standards be damned. 

Also you stated that Marian Carr Knox (the secretary) typed the letter.  She did not type the letter.  She only said she thought it was accurate.  Big difference.  Especially coming from an 86 year old lady. 

Remind me...which side could care less about the truth? 

OK - so where are the real documents?

Wait, I know, shredded and taken away in Gonzo's trash years ago.