What I think is highly inappropriate is what's going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News that's quite outrageous.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think a newspaper should be provocative, stir 'em up, but you can't do that on television. It's just not on.
CBS fought very hard on this because it believed and believes that there's a principle at stake here. The principle is that Dan Rather doesn't work for the police, and that people that speak to Dan Rather understand that he's a journalist and not a police agent.
The particular article ought in my opinion to be treated with absolute contempt. It is too vile to touch.
Tabloid stuff just offends.
People, photographers, people in the press can sometimes be inappropriate.
Anybody who informs on other people is doing something disturbing and even disgusting.
People need to be peppered or even outraged occasionally. Our national comedy and drama is packed with earthy familiarity and honest vulgarity. Clean vulgarity can be very shocking and that, in my view, gives greater involvement.
I don't think it is deniable: whenever we, I, conservative media, are really interested in something, the mainstream media purposely avoid it.
It's like tabloid news programs that talk about how horrible something is, while at the same time they're glorifying it as their top story.
It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.