July 30, 2008
LA Times on the McCain payroll
The LA Times' egregious Peter Nicholas--who as you may recall helped to write the worst 2008 campaign story so far--is at it again, covering up for McCain's lying ads. This is tiresome but necessary.
First, notice that the entire piece--all of it--is about McCain's campaign ads. There is literally nothing of substance in the piece.
Second, the article says:
In trying to paint its image of Obama, the McCain camp has turned increasingly negative, even derisive. Obama, meanwhile, is still working to persuade voters to trust him enough to see him as a president, even after 18 months of largely positive publicity.
Largely positive publicity? You mean, like the largely positive publicity of having 28% of statements being positive and 72% being negative? Note that the report on the George Mason study came from--the Los Angeles Times. Does Nicholas even read his own newspaper? Or maybe he does but can't add?
And, then, of course, the classic:
Over the course of several days, he also has attacked Obama for canceling a visit to wounded U.S. soldiers at a military hospital because he couldn't bring reporters along. Obama's campaign has angrily disputed the charge as false and misleading.
No--the ad is false and misleading. Jeez, even Rich Lowry says that the ad is false and misleading.
You can read the whole thing if you take a Dramamine beforehand. Maybe Sam Zell actually should fire everyone in the building. It can't get much worse.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
