The other day, I argued that journamalism wasn't hard. But it sure can be dishonest. Anne Kornblut should either be fired, or should have to write a public apology explaining how she misinterpreted Hillary Clinton's statements and why no one checked her version against the transcript. Kornblut, remember, is a top writer for a top paper -- she not only heard the speech, but was given a hard copy of the advance remarks. So to believe this isn't malicious, you have to assume that she 1) misunderstood Clinton and 2) declined to ever glance at the speech's text. So lazy or dishonest? And why such a history of flubbing the Hillary articles?
Bias? In the objective press corps? I refuse to believe it!
