Patterico lays out an excellent example of where believing something just because it’s ideologically convenient can lead you to a bad place. But I doubt the object of this lesson will actually learn anything from it.
This does also point to a new yet necessary style for any whistle blowers from the conservative side — always hold back something because the MAList enablers will always walk in to it.
There is also this post by Ann Althouse about a dispute on how much the Palin vs. Couric interview that was broadcast differed from the actual interview. Palin claims radical differences in her book, CBS and Couric claim it was straight up. I believe Palin primarily because CBS won’t release the raw footage. If CBS was write, it would be a perfect opportunity to damage Palin the same way Breitbart is smashing ACORN and its defenders above. Instead, CBS says only “trust us”. I think not.
I do think that Palin is right to fire back at Old Media’s duplicity, something I think ex-President Bush did far too little. However, moderation in all things. It is good to bring it up, bad to dwell on it. Put it out there and leave it, as a set up and background for the next time (and there will be a next time, a lot of them). Such as this stalking effort by Andrea Mitchell — how can any one watch that and not believe that Mitchell is motivated by spiteful hate, not journalism? The whole scene is a great metaphor for how I think Palin should handle press attacks. Acknowledge it, fire back, then move on, if for no other reason than it really ticks off the Old Media harpies.