http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/sequester-david-brooks-bob-woodward_n_2759600.html
I don't know if last week's David Brooks column was the first time he'd ever contended that President Barack Obama lacked a plan to replace the looming sequester, but it's definitely going to be the last time he makes the contention. That's because numerous writers took to the Interneten masse to demonstrate how Brooks's claim was not only untrue, but debunkable within 15 seconds of Googling.
The force of that wave of opprobrium was enough to cause Brooks to write a correction, of sorts, on his original item, blaming free-floating "frustration over the fiscal idiocy that is about to envelop the nation" for "getting the better of" him.No, I don't know what happened to, "I was wrong and I'm sorry," either. And it's ironic, considering that the sort of weird, detached-from-reality claims that Brooks made are just what contribute to the frustration of readers. Nevertheless, it was something of an admission of guilt, and probably the best we're going to get.
are we now allowing old guy writers carte blanch in their columns has Fox law become the norm or is he like it said looking for the elusive Watergate thrill up his leg?
And it wouldn't be a bad thing if adult supervision spread to other news organizations. Over at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward has been riding high in the sequester news cycle, dining out on the fact that his book, The Price Of Politics, captures a scene in which then-White House chief of staff Jack Lew introduces the concept of the sequester to Harry Reid. This anthropological detail would be a trivial piece of the story were it not for the fact that the debate over the sequester has devolved into a blame-game snit over "who started it." It's an argument that has no winner, and none of it is good for the country, but it was good for Woodward.Whether it was born from the desire to get another round of attention, or if he honestly thought he had a point to make, Woodward's next move was to get way, way out over his skis. In a Friday column, he contended that Obama, having asked for the sequester to be replaced with a deal that added revenues, was "moving the goalposts." In Woodward's odd construction, the sequester itself was an "all-cuts" deal, approved by Obama, and so asking for revenues was hypocritical. "That was not the deal he made," scolded Woodward.
why is he and other's committed to such certainty like they were in the room and they know. if someone comes to you and hands you on a silver platter a story IMO that just make you the person the wrote someting you got at least second handed and don't reall deserve allthe hoopla, the guy that got it is the guy of the hour he just took credit, we all can look at something and write down what it says, glory theft? or just the media feeding it's own another helping of 15 mins.?
