NYT/Kavanaugh: How many times do we have to see the same M.O. to recognize it and call it out?

[TwilightZone]

15. Sure, but so were the distractions, to an extent.

The Dan Rather memo, for example, was indeed a fake. At that point, the underlying story lost some credibility (and we, an excellent journalist) so it's somewhat understandable that the fake became *the* story, at least temporarily.

The problem, of course, was that the media then focused on only the fake and not the remainder of the story. Because of our short attention span, the fake pretty much blew any chance of the story remaining in the public eye or being researched further.

Unfortunately, that's how the system works, and it's somewhat representative of our society. Big stories basically get one shot and if the story takes a hit, the media tends to toss the entire works and move on to the next shiny object.

Complicating matters, specifically in Bush's case, record-keeping was spotty and the claims were all over the place*.

Trump and the right understand this, which is why they throw out trial balloons and make seemingly contradictory claims about just about everything. It introduces confusion and causes people to question legitimate sources.



*https://www.factcheck.org/2004/02/new-evidence-supports-bush-military-service-mostly/