Sometimes there is the label of liberal, sometimes it’s conservative, but let’s talk about news. Fox News to be exact.

And let’s talk about the truth and not truthiness.

Paul Begala is writing over at the Huffington Post about an experience he had earlier this week when it was reported that he was joining the Hillary Clinton campaign with James Carville. He quickly disputed that the story was false and wrote a series of emails to congressional correspondent Major Garrett (which was quite good-natured I might add) and informed the Fox reporter the information wasn’t true. Carville was a bit more Carville about it telling Greg Sargent of Talking Points Memo this:

Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this. I have not done domestic political consulting since President Clinton was elected. I’m not getting back into domestic political consulting. If I do go back, it would be safe to say that I’m the biggest liar in America.”

Yup. Carville never acts out of character and this sounds like him, but let’s go back to Begala.

Garrett told Begala he would “take it under advisement.” Garret’s actual quote, not mine. Under Advisement. He went with it anyway, according to Begala, after the liberal pundit disputed it.
Now here’s my take, first of all get your news from the horse’s mouth. Begala was the horse. He told him in the emails, which can be found here, that it just wasn’t accurate.

I realize Fox is Fox and believe me, they don’t get a pass from me on just reporting whatever they heck they want. But nonetheless, the story could have been rewritten and it could have included Begala’s response. Instead, it didn’t. Other news outlets contacted Begala and asked him about the rumors. Garrett didn’t. When Begala contacted him, he still didn’t change the story.

Garrett, on Tuesday when the story broke, continued to write about it on his blog “The Bourbon Room” but hasn’t posted since that day. To his defense (which I’m very leery of even giving) he says he had “compelling” information that Begala would join the campaign.  That’s when apparently Begala went public.

This is interesting. Reporter vs. pundit. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? In my opinion, and I am a liberal in the beautiful spirit of disclosure, is that Garrett was wrong not due to the politics of it all, but by not listening to the Begala and getting downright stubborn about it. He should have cited his “compelling” information and his sources and he should have posted it at “The Bourbon Room.”

The Carpetbagger Report says this:

Generally, professional journalists don’t take the truth “under advisement”; they take it to their audience.

It shouldn’t be a political incident, and in a couple of days it won’t mean squat, but it has become one.

Fox knows better. Garrett knows better.