Reuters botches Huckabee rape story

It's not just a small error on the part of Reuters. It's a classic case of how corrupted our media has become.

In this case, Reuters attempts to cover the story of how Huckabee helped a convicted rapist get paroled, and then the rapist went on to rape and murder two more women. In an effort to provide "balance," Reuters presents Huckabee's side of the story (I didn't help free the rapist) and the other side of the story (yes he did). Who does Reuters quote as the other side of the story? None other than a Democratic politician, labeled as such in the story. Why is that a problem? Because they had a former top aide to Huckabee, Olan W. "Butch" Reeves, a Republican who has donated to his presidential campaign, who was at the meeting and confirms that Huckabee tried to influence the board.

Here's what Reeves had to say:

[A]ccording to Reeves, Huckabee actually told the parole board members that the prison sentence meted out to Dumond for his rape conviction was "outlandish" and "way out of bounds for his crime." Huckabee believed there "was something nefarious" about the how the state's criminal justice system had treated Dumond, Reeves said.

Instead of using the source who isn't biased and confirms Huckabee's involvement in the parole release, Reuters chooses the source whose credibility is in doubt. Did Reuters do this in an attempt to kill the story? No. They did it because they're trying so hard to be "fair" that they've lost any concept of the truth. In Reuters' mind - in the mainstream media's mind - the way to be "fair" with a story is to present "both sides." That means a Republican and a Democrat. (The mainstream media loves presenting all sides of a story, even when a story only has one side, but that's a discussion for another day.)

In this case, it was obvious to Reuters that the best way to be fair is to present what a Republican has to say and then what a Democrat has to counter. The only problem is that the Democrat's word is suspect because he's a Democrat attacking a Republican. Reuters had a better source to quote, a Republican who witnessed the event first-hand and who is a trusted ally of Huckabee. So why not use him instead, and avoid the "oh this is just a Democratic smear" implication? Again, I don't think Reuters wanted to water down the story. I think Reuters didn't care if they watered down the story, or worse, didn't even realize they were watering it down. In the ever-shrinking mind's eye of the mainstream media, he-said-she-said is the gold standard of fairness and accuracy, regardless of whether in practice all truth is lost.

But hey, at least the story LOOKS fair. And isn't that what really matters?