Reply #19: Don't forget Adam Nagourney

[Jai4WKC08]

That's sort of whom I was thinking of, altho I could probably come up with others.

I've read his NYT article of Sept 19th a dozen times, and bounced it against Clark's replies on the subject and the accounts from others who were there as to what was actually said, and all I can come up with was that Nagouney knew exactly what Clark meant and chose to report it as tho he said the exact opposite. If you read closely, Nagourney's account is specifically restructured, time-line wise, to create a totally different impression than what happened. Whether his intention was to trash Clark, or just to get a headline, or both, I don't know. But the effect was devestating to the early campaign and still creates doubt about Clark's political skills and the integrity of his views.

I also find it hard to believe that people like Nedra Pickler aren't completely aware that the Drudge report of what Clark said in TN has been debunked. Again, by people who were there. And with no conflicting reports. Even Drudge removed the report from his site, but Pickler and others continue to report it. You gotta wonder why they would use Drudge as a source for anything, but when there's HARD evidence that it was all just a lie? I don't understand how they can get away with it.

I'm sure that if I thought about it, I could come up with other examples. I'm not giving the talking heads a pass by any means--they did some pretty ugly twisting of the facts as well. I'm only saying that when Clark himself has been on TV, it's harder for them to edit down his words to something damaging and untrue.