Sure, Media Matters regularly attacks Sean Hannity. But when is the last time they did so by relying on the word of convicted felon Anthony Pellicano? From a post of theirs published today:
[D]uring the segment, Hannity compared the FBI audio tapes of Blagojevich to tapes released by Gennifer Flowers, saying, “Everything that we heard in the Gennifer Flowers tapes came true.” However, the Los Angeles Times reported on January 30, 1992:
A nationally known expert who examined a tape-recorded conversation allegedly between Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and a woman who claims to have had a long-term affair with him said the tape had been “selectively edited” and is “suspect at best.”
“If you take this tape recording at its face value, it’s misleading,” said Anthony J. Pellicano, a prominent expert on tape recordings who has testified in numerous criminal cases involving tapes.
Is this Media Matters’s idea of evidence — relying on the opinion of Anthony Pellicano??
In 1992, Anthony J. Pellicano might fairly have been described as a “prominent expert on tape recordings.” But today, in December 2008, he’s more properly described as a felon with numerous federal felony convictions for wiretapping and possessing explosives. As the “private eye to the stars,” his case has been the subject of numerous stories in several national media publications, including New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
What’s next? A searing indictment of Rush Limbaugh, complete with quotes from Rod Blagojevich? An essay on Republicans’ lack of ethics, with expert commentary from Alcee Hastings and Dan Rostenkowski?
What are these people thinking? Are the people at Media Matters completely unfamiliar with basic current affairs?