Not Your Sweetie

"Objective" Journalist: Gore is like Nixon, only Worse

After reading a pathetic article in Philadelphia Enquirer trying to turn history upside down, I wrote the author the following e-mail:
n your despicable apology of the GOP, comparing Gore to Nixon, you
> conveniently left out one difference (which is the very purpose of your
> article): GORE WON! He beat Bush, while Nixon lost to Kennedy. You can
> try to conceal this to the end of days, there is no elected president at
> this time in the White House.

To which he immediately responded:

I'm always grateful when pro-Democratic readers call my work "despicable,"
because usually it's pro-Republican readers who say that, and much
worse....You may have the luxury of saying that Gore won, but as a
journalist I don't have that luxury. I have to abide by the official
results. I also have to abide by the official results in 1960, even though
there's plenty of historical evidence to suggest that Mayor Daley in
Chicago, and underworld leaders in key wards, created thousand of voters to
help put Kennedy over the top.
Thanks for writing. I respectfully disagree with the premise of your email,
but I won't call it despicable. Happy holidays.

To which I replied:


If you really insist on convincing me that as a journalist you are bound by
the truth, than you'll check the history on your beloved Nixon: the GOP did
not allow him to challenge the results because the number of votes in question
were not enough to change anything.
So much Nixonian bitterness, so many laughable efforts to appear
objective...Not that the article was not plain enough, but the letter sealed
it. Journalism used to be a respectable endeavor, until it moved into the
PR/propaganda zone. And I do believe you that you get critical letters from
Republicans. They'll never be satisfied with your dedication. You'll never
praise Bush enough, tar Gore enough to satisfy the right wingers. But God
knows, you're trying hard!