The "quality journalists" being of course those who constantly mock them, criticize them, and do not even care to provide more than superficial arguments because all good people know what they must vote anyway? Quality medias such as the BBC and their reports about the Iraqi MDW?
What about the BBC coverage of the Iraqi WMDs? The BBC was the only media outlet that challenged and exposed the 45-minute threat and African uranium claims as false. The BBC told the truth when the Blair government, as has been proved by the Chilcott inquiry, lied to parliament and lied to the British people.
I admit I could be wrong on this topic, I was not living in the UK and do not read English medias, but I was pretty sure the BBC had responsibilities in the spread of those lies, beyond a mere reporting of the government's position. Regrettably I am not interested in this topic enough to dig it and know which medias did what.
I trusted my memories. Maybe they are wrong, maybe they are not. I am glad to know that you never post unless the topic motivates you enough to perform what would actually be much more than a modicum of research.
Where the admission here would be designed to earn respects on account of being commendable in any context, following it by the caveat of
is taking the road of "tu quoque", always a precarious path to tread. Exacerbated by the insinuation that others are partial to the same sloppiness in finding a firm ground for their supposition as one has just admitted to being. Worsening it all by attempting to use that totally unproven presumption as justification for own failing.
