More on the Rolling Stone fabrication that large numbers of Oklahomans were overdosing on Ivermectin, to the point where hospitals were turning away gunshot victims and there were no ambulances to be had.
Many have suggested that Rolling Stone must be thoroughly humiliated at being exposed peddling fake news, and that the magazine should have known better after the University of Virginia rape fiasco.
I’m not so sure. The lesson Rolling Stone could have taken away from the Virginia case is that it should be careful about libeling identifiable people who may sue. In the Ivermectin story, there is no potential for defamation.
And do leftists like Rolling Stone’s journalists and Rachel Maddow really care about getting facts straight? I question whether they are embarrassed at all. (For what it is worth, at last word Maddow had not deleted her tweet promoting the Rolling Stone story.) I wonder whether, instead, they are proud of being Liars For the Cause. After all, anyone can tell the truth, but to lie for leftism requires a higher level of commitment.
This is a big topic, but another, more major instance is the Russia collusion hoax. Have any of the reporters or editors at publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post, along with many others, apologized for promoting a wholly made-up story? Not that I know of. Are they sheepish about it? Has being so grotesquely wrong prompted any trend toward humility? I don’t think so. My guess is that most of those who promoted the Russia hoax are satisfied that, while false, the story successfully served its intended purpose.
The two-decade long striptease of the MSM is revealing naked propaganda.