Topic: Media Research Center
NewsBusters' John Armor, in an Oct. 8 post, beats up on the Washington Post for an "extended whitewash" in an article on the Hillary Clinton fund-raising pseudo-scandal, claiming that "The reporter spends most of her article savaging the witnesses against Hillary Clinton" -- that, of course, would be convicted felons (and conservative darlings) Aaron Tonken and Peter Paul. Armor writes:
But if no one could be found responsible based on testimony of witnesses who have themselves committed crimes, no member of the Mafia would ever have gone to jail. Reporters, like prosecutors, have to take their witnesses as they find them. Sometimes, apparently “bad” people do tell the truth.
Armor offers no evidence that the "bad" Tonken and Paul are indeed telling the truth, other than an assumption that because what they say makes the Clintons look bad, it therefore must be the truth.
So, we've established that "savaging" convicted criminals who serve as witnesses is a bad thing (Armor is apparently so opposed to the practice that he doesn't even name Paul and Tonken in his post). But, a few NewsBusters posts later, what do we see Dustin Hawkins doing? Exactly what Armor advised against.
In an Oct. 10 post, Hawkins savages Sandy Berger, who responded to allegations made by former FBI director Louis Freeh on "60 Minutes":
Amusingly, it is Sandy Berger who will be coming to Clinton's defense tonight in a written statement to be read by CBS. Sandy Berger is best known for being Clinton's National Securoty Adviser who was recently given a $50,000 fine, ordered to do 100 hours of community service, and placed on probation for stealing Classified Government Documents and stuffing them in his pants.
So, Dustin and John, tell us again why Tonken and Paul are trustworthy and Berger is not.
UPDATE: Breaking factoid: John Armor posts at Free Republic as "Congressman Billybob."