The Blinders Continue With Howard Kurtz
Howard Kurtz has an interesting piece in the Washington Post today about the home-state reporters who have covered the Democratic candidates the longest and their resulting familiarity and knowledge of those candidates. It is a good piece, but it begs the obvious question: where was the media’s attention to Bush’s home-state reporters in 1999-2000? Why was no one in the Beltway paying attention to the Texas reporters who knew Bush the best in that critical period to see what they were saying about Bush? Because they didn’t do that, we were left with the fawning coverage from the likes of Frank Bruni of the New York Times and other national-paper reporters who were bamboozled by the Rove/Hughes charm operation into ignoring Bush’s actual record, history, and behavior.
In fact, note how Kurtz doesn’t even mention any home-state reporter example for Bush in his entire write-up. All of his examples are Democrats. As far as this story goes, it is as if Bush had no history with home-state reporters who may be critical of him.
But it does give Kurtz the chance to enter some negative information about the Democratic candidates into the paper in a back-door way, by using the prop of home-state reporting as the cover.