Social Media: Twitter Testing Easier-To-Use Hashtags
FL Politics: Fla. judge: Redraw congressional map now
Election 2016: Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
Aug. 18: Cantor to resign from Congress
If you’re familiar with the game “6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon” you’ll know what I mean with the above post title.
The object of the game is to, as MSNBC describes it, “connect Bacon and any other actor through the films or television shows the two have worked on in no more than six steps.”
In the case of Mary McCarthy, there are more than six “degrees” tying her to various Democrats and CIA officers and/or defenders. The Commissar has posted a graphic showing a several connections between McCarthy and Democrats, which is something you probably won’t see in the NYTimes (as Patterico notes in his post about media double standards regarding mentioning the ties people under fire have with certain political parties). Major Chaz posts a graph of connections as well.
As Tom Maguire pointed out, the NYTimes gave a brief mention about McCarthy’s $2,000 campaign contribution to Kerry in 2004, but failed to mention her 2004 campaign contribution of $5,000 to the Ohio Democratic party.
Howard Kurtz, writing in Monday’s Washington Post, agreed with NRO columnist Andy McCarthy, who took the WaPo to task for failing to mention *any* of Mary McCarthy’s campaign contributions to Democrats. Kurtz agreed that mentioning the money she’s given to Democrats was “[a]bsolutely relevant information.”
However, via Stephen Spruiell, we learn that WaPo staff writer Dafna Linzer – who was one of the two ‘main’ writers on the original WaPo story about Mary McCarthy – said in an online WaPo chat yesterday in response to the question as to why the WaPo decided not to mention McCarthy’s ties to Democrats (emphasis added):
You’re absolutely right – I’m getting a lot of questions about this. I disagree with Howie on this one. I think in his chat he said her campaign contributions go to motive but I don’t know yet what she’s done so I’m not sure how to assign motive here. Intelligence officers do not check their citizenship at the gates of Langley and like all government employees they are free to vote and make contributions – all of which is very much apart from their commitment to government service and to fulfilling the policies of any president.
But we are living in partisan times and people want a partisan, political motive and explanation for everything. I don’t think that’s reasonable. Should we publish the campaign contributions of every person who testifies before Congress, every person who briefs a president, every person who writes a policy paper or plays any role in government whatsoever or who is ever quoted in a story? We could, the information is public. But I don’t want to confuse readers or issues by throwing that into the mix unless I understand its relevance. We have reported that she worked in Clinton’s NSC and whom she has worked with and will continue to write about it.
Publishing Enron’s campaign contributions to President Bush are fair game, noting that Dick Cheney’s connection with Halliburton is justifiable, and the NY Times making a graph about the Swift Boat Vets “web of connections” to President Bush and Karl Rove is ok, but publishing McCarthy’s ties to Democrats is not important.
Hat tip: AllahPundit at HotAir.
Update: The WSJ posts an editorial slamming the MSM, suggesting that to some in the media certain leaks are ‘more equal’ than others.
Related Toldjah So posts: