CNN's John King Repudiates His Own Random Act of Journalism
October 18, 2011
RUSH: To the audio sound bites. John King, ladies and gentlemen, CNN. This is good. John King, CNN, has repudiated his own random act of journalism because I praised it. This has to be heard to believe. The Raspberry Effect, William Raspberry, a former columnist of the Washington Post, he wrote a piece highly critical of me based on things he had heard people say. Then one day he decided, "you know what, I'm gonna listen," and William Raspberry listened to the program and basically retracted the criticisms that he had offered, saying, "I didn't hear anything that sounded like the criticisms I had been told." So the Raspberry Effect, if you actually listen to the program, you have a far different impression of it than if you just listen to people describe it to you who have never listened either, who have an agenda.
This is quite different. This is John King actually repudiating his own random act of journalism. He's repudiating his story. He's not retracting it. He's repudiating it because I praised it. Here, I'll show you what I'm talking about. This is John King last night on his show John King USA.
KING: To hear Rush Limbaugh, we here at John King USA have caught the Attorney General in a lie or at least a non-truth when it comes to his knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking program Fast and Furious.
RUSH ARCHIVE: John King is calling attention to a huge contradiction. How did the President know about this in March and how did the President know the Attorney General knew nothing about this in March when the Attorney General says in May he just learned about it a couple of weeks ago?
RUSH: This was a question that John King himself asked. If you recall the original story, John King played the audio sound bites of both these guys, and it raised some questions, credibility questions on the part of both Obama and Holder. And we simply reported it, that John King had committed a random act of journalism. He had been dubious, suspicious, curious of two ranking members of the regime. This normally doesn't happen. CNN normally covers up for the regime, Democrat regimes particularly. Since we praised John King, he got a little nervous out there. So after playing that clip of me talking about his reporting on Fast and Furious, the gun program, Mr. King then continued.
KING: Here's tonight's truth. While we're always appreciative of kind words, the facts do not support the black and white right and wrong view of Mr. Limbaugh and other conservatives who see a flat-out contradiction. The public record shows it was Holder himself who ordered his department's inspector general to investigate Fast and Furious. Again, that was in March. So he clearly knew about the controversy then. What is curious is why he was then so vague when he told Congress he learned, as you just heard, quote, "A few weeks ago." Holder knows better. He's an experienced attorney and an experienced political appointee, a veteran of the Clinton administration who knows all too well the perils of giving vague answers to a new Republican majority determined to challenge the Democratic administration with aggressive oversight.
RUSH: Okay, so here again, King commits another random act of journalism, repeating his original random act of journalism while attempting to repudiate it at the same time, because I happened to cite it and praise it. So after first defending Holder and attacking conservatives by saying that, "While we at John King USA are always appreciative of kind words, the facts do not support the black and white right and wrong view of Mr. Limbaugh and other conservatives who see a flat-out contradiction. The public record shows it was Holder himself who ordered his department's inspector general to investigate Fast and Furious." So clearly he knew about the controversy then.
"What is curious --" here comes the random act of journalism again "-- what is curious is why he was so vague when he told Congress he learned only a few weeks ago." And here comes the "I gotta get it right with the regime" portion of the report. "Holder knows better. He's an experienced attorney. Experienced political appointee" -- can you imagine, Clarence Thomas knows better, Alberto Gonzales knows better. And he wasn't through. He wasn't through. He ought to be Eric Holder's lawyer after this defense.
KING: He has since tried to satisfy the committee with a very detailed letter but the Republicans want to see him in person, they want him to testify again. Well, here's betting he has a much more detailed recollection when he does. Until then, Republicans can rightly say they have questions and can rightly say the attorney general in that testimony you just heard could have been and should have been more precise.
KING: But the truth is, it's a stretch and a huge stretch to say anything beyond that.
RUSH: This all started with Mr. King saying, "To hear Rush Limbaugh, we here at John King USA have caught the attorney general in a lie, or at least a non-truth." Did you know a lie is different than a non-truth? You know the difference? Democrats tell non-truths and they know better. And when we catch 'em telling non-truths, we're gonna help 'em finesse their way through it. Republicans lie, and they do it on purpose with the intent to deceive and protect themselves. But Holder, it was a non-truth. And we know that when he testifies again he'll be far more specific. He'll have a much more detailed recollection. Until then, Republicans can rightly say they have questions and can rightly say the attorney general, that testimony you just heard, could have been more precise. The truth is he told a non-truth, but that's a stretch, a huge stretch to say anything beyond he told a non-truth.
Mr. King probably, to be fair here, is fighting for his professional life. We know the worst thing that can happen to a liberal media person is to be praised by me. You just don't know. Living that down is next to impossible. He could get divorced over it.