In his column today, Broder rushes to defend the GOP against a New York Times piece from Tuesday noting that the condition of the GOP was less than perfect right now. To do this, however, Broder omitted key facts about the Times piece in a way that, to put it charitably, is highly questionable indeed. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
To:
Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.
Note:
This seems like a decent response to Broder's piece, and the kind of journalistic demand for factual accounting that we would have been better seeing fours years ago.
A snarky, bloggy, one-sided hit piece on columnist David Broder, which makes some good points about Broder's reporting, but undercuts itself with a silly, one-sided attitude.
Sargent is correct that Broder fails to acknowledge the New York Time's qualifications, but he fails to address Broder's over arching point- that the media is trying to analyze the 2008 election before the candidate field and voters' opinions of that field are ready to be analyzed.
Retrieving Comments
