You have to read this Patterico post to believe it. NPR’s ombudsman Alicia Shepard issues a flat-out erroneous statement. Patterico confronts her on it. She challenges him. Fine. Except….
She bases her fight entirely on the transcript, but never watches the video, which definitely proves that her tweet, which was widely republished, was false. Nor is Patterico demanding that she watch the entire 2 hour video (’cause she says she’s very, very busy). He gives her chapter and verse to the very last second, but she relies entirely on a secondary source. When he finally backs her up against the factual wall, she issues a weasel-y clarification, as if she was merely muddy in the beginning, not completely incorrect.
In my first paragraph, above, I was careful to say she issued an “erroneous statement,” because, at the start of this cycle, the ombudsman deserved the benefit of the doubt. By the end, it was clear that she lied, both because she refused to back down when confronted with evidence and because she refused to acknowledge the falsity of her original statement. When you cling to a falsehood, even after you know better, that’s a lie.
Aside from the blatant dishonesty here, there’s something else interesting going on, which is the liberal reliance on secondary sources. I see that all the time with Mr. Bookworm. Why actually check out conservative sources, when you can just watch Jon Stewart clownishly lambaste them? That’s so much truer and purer.
Mr. Bookworm is not alone. Indeed, the “don’t bother to see what your opponents really say” mindset starts at the top of the liberal dung heap. Here’s Paul Krugman:
Some have asked if there aren’t conservative sites I read regularly. Well, no. I will read anything I’ve been informed about that’s either interesting or revealing; but I don’t know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously. I know we’re supposed to pretend that both sides always have a point; but the truth is that most of the time they don’t. The parties are not equally irresponsible; Rachel Maddow isn’t Glenn Beck; and a conservative blog, almost by definition, is a blog written by someone who chooses not to notice that asymmetry. And life is short …
As I understand that, Krugman is saying “I only read secondary material about conservatives from trusted liberal sources, and then, after having done so, I opine loudly and brutally about the errors in conservative thing.” That, of course, is exactly what Ms. Shepard did.
Later, when push comes to shove, rather than having the grace to blush, these highly placed Progressives glory in their ignorance — which, says William Tucker, is precisely why they keep getting caught up in these marvelous O’Keefe or Rose style stings. They’re too brilliant in their liberal elite-ness ever to examine the facts.