- The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, The New York Post, may have just impeded an FBI investigation into terroristic threats.
I know this because I was a recipient.
The Bureau asked us not to report any of the details so that the person or persons responsible would not know any of the threats had been received by any of the targets -- and we of course complied.
I still cannot confirm many of the specifics -- again in order to make the jobs of the FBI and the New York Police Department a little easier. But I find it necessary to respond to the genuinely shocking tone with which Murdoch's paper reported the event, and the string of factual errors they made either through negligence or a premeditated disregard for the truth.
Olbermann then goes on to eviscerate the Post's reporting, and concludes:
- It's almost melodramatic to ask why the New York Post would choose the side of domestic terrorism, rather than choose the side of the FBI.
It's interesting too that Murdoch's paper was able to get a jump on this story so quickly -- nearly as quickly, as if they'd known it was coming.
Lastly, it's remarkable that this was actually printed by any newspaper, even in the current political climate, even in the wake of my editorial stance here, even with Rupert Murdoch's international reputation.
Actually, considering the ethical wasteland that Murdoch's media operations have made of journalism, it's probably not that remarkable at all.
After all, in a nation where torture is considered acceptable, why not encourage right-wing domestic terrorism? It'd help keep those libruls in line.
Well, it's encouraging to see that the FBI, at least, still takes these kinds of threats seriously. And to their good credit, even some right-wing bloggers -- notably Rick Moran, Hugh Hewitt, Patterico, and Ed Morrissey -- understand what's at stake here. I've criticized these bloggers many times in the past, and expect to do so in the future, but give them credit where it's due.