Anatomy of a smear, and the MSM template it fits...

Of course, the New York Times. Read Good Lt. over at The Jawa Report. You can click through the link on his post to see Rush's original response. Here's that clip:


Tim Graham has coverage at NewsBusters also:

Newspapers are supposed to be so much better at television at providing hard facts and context to today’s news. That’s not what the Washington Post did on Saturday in a snarky Style section article on Rush Limbaugh raising $2.1 million on eBay (and donating the same amount) to a worthy charity auctioning off Senator Harry Reid’s snotty letter to Clear Channel Communications denouncing Rush Limbaugh’s remarks about phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth.

Neely Tucker’s short piece failed to explain the context of (a) what Rush originally said on the air about phony soldiers and (b) what Reid’s letter to Clear Channel said about they should "publicly repudiate" Limbaugh for his comments. The Post tried to discount the whole affair as "petty bickering about patriotism" and "grandstanding."

Harry Reid is shameless.