3/13/2006

4 Comments

1. Clearly, it’s a case of nobless oblige. The confusion comes from the inability of the little people to grasp that when The Dan talks, it’s a one way street. The Dan asks the questions and others submit to his interrogations. It’s the natural order of things and there are no exceptions.

   Comment by Black Jack (d8da01) — 3/14/2006 @ 8:35 am

2. It’s noblesse oblige.

   And Rather would thus be required to accommodate the questioner, not disdain him.

   “The Courier-Post won’t run something if we’re not sure it’s authentic.”

   They never have to run corrections. Who Knew?

   The same writer, Jim Walsh, did a cut-and-dry account of the Rather speech five days before in the same paper and never construed any spectacle or theatrics over the Guard question.

   Courier-Post readers should expect to be informed of high-drama audience booing and mic cut-off’s, even if the writer was the goad.

   Guess he found a spine. Or misplaced his notes.

   Second takes appear a tad contrived.

   http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/NEWS01/603090376/1006

   Comment by steve (ab55e3) — 3/14/2006 @ 9:51 pm

3. That proves nothing. Perhaps an editor cut out the reference to the booing. Perhaps the reporter figured he’d save it for a column. I find those explanations far more plausible than one that requires the reporter to have simply made up the incident, as you seem to suggest.

   Comment by Patterico (de0616) — 3/14/2006 @ 10:05 pm

4. Made it up?

   Perhaps embroidered.

   The Rather speech was a big deal in Cherry Hill, from all indications. If barbs fly and mics are cut, you don’t save it for the next week. Such a dust-up, as described, would have had considerable, time-sensitive news value.

   I await with interest Courier-Post follow-up letters on the night.

   Comment by steve (ab55e3) — 3/14/2006 @ 10:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.