Fair.org's article above brings back up the "bulge" on Bush's jacket during the 2004 Presidential Debates, and then points out that The New York Times killed the piece.
Frankly, they should have. And it's really a good thing. How do you prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bush had a wire on during the Presidential elections? Either someone who's seen the wire comes forward, or someone presents proof. Few people get to see the president as is; seeing the Shrub with a wire on is pretty unlikely. And proof is just as unlikely; no one would get near enough to investigate the bulge.
The bulge is suspicious, and I'd even bet that it was a wire. But I'd never collect, because I can't prove it. So putting it into the paper -- any paper -- is a mistake unless further proof could be made available. That's the point of the paper: print *facts*, not *allegations*. Print what you know and can prove.
Posted by Ted Stevko at February 5, 2005 10:05 AM | TrackBack