The Washington Post published a hack job about Senator John McCain’s health if ever there was one. As most readers will know, Sen. McCain was diagnosed with skin cancer years ago. Doctors performed surgery on him, and they were successful; McCain has been cancer-free ever since.
But that did not prevent the WaPo from trying to raise doubts about McCain nonetheless. They asked several doctors what they thought about McCain’s health and the possibility for his cancer returning.
Most remarkable about the judgment of all these ‘experts’ is that those who actually have personal, close knowledge of McCain’s health, who did check on him and / or who read all his health files, are of the opinion that he is in good health and that the cancer of years ago is unlikely to cause any problems.
Those who have never done any research on the senator, and who have not read all his files, however, are of a different opinion.
If these experts, as TownHall.com’s Bill Dyer pointed out earlier today, would ever have to testify in court, they would have been destroyed. The jury would laugh at them. They would have been laughed out of court, with no refuge to take. But the WaPo implies we have to take them and their ‘professional’ yet uninformed opinion seriously.
The WaPo should never have published the article. Investigating the man’s health is fine, but publishing hack jobs in order to raise doubts about his health is not. Especially not when you endorsed the senator’s main rival, Barack Obama, 24 hours before. People more cynical than I am would probably conclude that the article was not published out of journalist motives, but partisan ones.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
