In a very weird editorial the other day, the Chicago Tribune, whose editorial board is decidedly conservative, blasted FOX News for helping smear Obama with the false accusation that he was a Muslim (he's really a Christian) who had attended radical Muslim schools as a child (he didn't). That's the good part of the editorial. From the Trib:
[W]hat [the Washington Times' magazine] Insight did on its Web site, and what Fox News did in repeating the report, was not ideological at all. It was unethical, unprofessional and shabby, a trifecta, if you will, in the world of journalism.
Oh really? The fact that the Washington Times and FOX News have no ethics proves that they didn't publish the smear with the intent of harming a Democrat? Because a news outlet having an ideological agenda would be unethical, I guess. (Not to mention, suggesting that the Washington Times isn't ideological?)
Then the kicker from the Trib:
It also is a sign of the growing indifference Internet "journalism" presents on the question of truth. Rumor is good enough. Bibles of blogging are created based on nothing more than rumor.
Right. The fact that two major multi-million dollar icons of the conservative mainstream media - the print publication Washington Times and the TV news channel FOX News - totally defamed an honest hard-working American is somehow proof that online, independent bloggers suck.
