A gem of a slip-up in this article on Charles Johnson in the WaPo:
Not everyone, though, is a fan. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights organization often vilified on Johnson’s blog, calls Little Green Footballs “a vicious, anti-Muslim hate site…that has unfortunately become popular.”
The irony, Hooper says, is that if the same kind of “hatred” that appears on LGF appeared on Muslim sites, it soon would be used by LGF’s fans to justify their worldview.
Who does this guy think he’s kidding, anyway?
Either way-—and regardless of what you think of LGF and its commentators—-the question is, what does any of this have to do with the Reuters scandal? The fact is, the photos were retouched. The fact is, Charles and his commentators took note and began supplying evidence. And the fact is, Reuters has been forced to concede these first two facts, pull 900 photos, and—-as we’re seeing happen now-—will be under intense scrutiny for some time to come.
But the WaPo’s Paul Farhi felt the need to soften the blow against the establishment news service by trying to attack the credibility of the source of its embarrassment—-even though he knew the source to be correct in this instance.
Which didn’t much matter, so long as the label was applied. Its all of a piece, in fact: begin the redefining of the right as extreme, and the hard left as moderate. Watchdogs are haters. And terrorist sympathizers are “civil rights” groups.
So. What did we learn today?
Umm…that the liberal MSM, by virtue of their rank-closing attempts to explain away the lying, pro-Hezbollah propagandists among them, has (and by-God ought to have) less credibility than Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf?