One need look no further than today's Wall Street Journal to figure out why the
left has been so adamantly opposed to its sale to Rupert Murdoch. The Wall Street
Journal has had the audacity, the effrontery, to challenge, actually challenge,
one of the left's most cherished shibboleths: Queen Hillary.
Doing what 'mainstream' journalists have failed to do for, oh, the last ten years
or so (except when a Republican is president), the WSJ today put the 'investigate'
back in 'investigative journalism.'
Following up on records of campaign donations with the FEC, the WSJ stumbled across
something odd. The Paw family, residing in a modest 1280 square foot home, has donated
$45,000 to Hillary since 2005, and the contributions of the family of six to other
Democrat candidates since 2005, have totalled a whopping $200,000.
Connecting the dots, as good reporters do, they questioned how a 64-year-old postal
worker came up with that kind of dough. A little more digging, of the kind not
ever seen in Hillary's backyard, turned up another odd fact. One of
Hillary's mojo fundraisers, Mr. Hsu, affectionately nicknamed "HillRaiser," once
listed the same modest address. Pretty shabby digs for such a mover and shaker.
Reading this story was a shock. Not because of the facts it unearthed about Hillary
and more 'alleged' campaign fraud, but because it drove home how long it has been
since I've read anything remotely censorious about Hillary. Oh, the media will write
about her cleavage, her marriage and her 'feelings', but a hard news story alleging
actual facts? Whoa.
Now I'm connecting the dots. All those headlines arguing against conservative bad
boy Rupert Murdoch gaining control of the Wall Street Journal start to make sense.
What's to stop Murdoch from unleashing his reporters on other hard news stories?
What's to keep him from lobbing hardball questions at Hillary like, say, her perjury
in the Whitewater affair, or her dalliance with Vince Foster and possible culpability
in his posed 'suicide?'
Come to think of it, maybe the Wall Street Journal will question Hillary's direct
contradictions (that's liberal speak for lies) in the Travelgate affair, or the
cover-up of her husbands' 'alleged' rape of Juanita Brodderick. Or ask her why she
lied about such trivial things as the origins of her name and where Chelsea was
on 9-11. Heaven forbid they should start looking into her and Bill's ties to questionable
Chinese characters bearing gifts.
The left has had a stranglehold on the media for forty years. Now that iron grip
is losing strength, what with the internet, talk radio and Fox News (another target
of the left, what a coincidence). The ability to frame what issues are allowed to
be part of the national dialogue has long been their exclusive province. And they
have abused this privilege by failing to report on stories that don't fit their
liberal, utopian world-view. (That's conservative speak for 'fake but accurate').
It's kinda like lying by omission.
No matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. If today's Wall Street
Journal story and the outraged howls on the left are any indication, I predict we'll
soon be getting both sides of the pancake. And maybe average Americans will also
have the choice as to how much and what kind of syrup is served with it. This is
She lives in South Carolina