Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
You need to re-read the article.
The quote is as follows:
"To Mr. Menendez and his staff, the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear."
You said that "By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear..." Then you quoted part of the sentence from Menendez or a staffer giving the impression the sentence was from the NYT when infact it was by Mendendez/staffer.
The very next paragraph says "But the results have been troubling revelations. Those documented by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other newspapers involve serious accusations of favoritism by the senator."
That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges).
Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them.
|
"That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges)."
I didn't deny that. But why do you think the NYT found it relevent to mention that some paid GOP operatives are involved? If the story is true, why mention the source? The answer, is to diminish the seriousness of teh charges, and shift some of the blame to Senator Menendez's political opponents.
"Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them"
Earlier, you made some smug comment to one of the conservatives here about the fact that if he couldn't do the google searches on his own, you'd help him with it. Let's assume you are capable of doing the same Google search I did.
I found coverage in the NYT of the Rubio water drinking. Even if I hadn't, my point about media bias was still valid. I did not say that every single liberal media outlet, with zero exceptions, was trumping up the Rubio water thing. Had I said that, your responses would be relevent. Since I didn't say that, your responses are not as relevent, though they are somewhat relevent. Pointing out one single exception does not refute a generalized statement.
I see you won't comment on MSNBC's coverages of the Rubio water drinking, versus their coverage of the Menendez thing. I wonder why that could be? Hmmm, that's a real head-scratcher.
.