Redstate

By streiff Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

We are viewing the last act in a sordid attempt by a media organization to directly influence the presidential election, not through it's editorial and op-ed pages, but through its ostensible news coverage.

Within minutes the Department of Defense will hold a news conference featuring 3ID soldiers who personally removed over 200 tons of explosives from the al Qaqaa facility. We can only hope that the Thorozine the NYT staff should have been taking last weekend kicks in and they let this nothingburger go.

But there are no assurances.

One would have thought that the ABC News story establishing that the Iraqi government report had overstated the amount of explosives and that the IAEA had warned that the ammunition bunkers could be accessed without breaking their seals would have warned the Times off.

Hardly.

Today they boldly claim that video shows there were seals intact on 18 April and that there were explosives unsecured.

This sham survived mere hours. As noted via Instapundit the number on the seal shown in the video does not match any of the numbers on the IAEA seals and apparently the GPS coordinates recorded by the news crew places them 3 miles from the sites in question.

This election season has highlighted the blatant partisanship of a good portion of the legacy media. Not content to push their editorial views onto the news pages, at least two organizations, the NY Times and CBS News, in the form of 60-Minutes and 60-Minutes II, have coordinated directly with each other and with a political campaign to attack a candidate for office. This, at a minimum, calls into question our current view of the First Amendment and the various exemptions to commonsense that have been granted the press.