Hugh Hewitt continues to hammer on the Scheer scandal. Astoundingly, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune printed Scheer's BBC Jessica Lynch hoax column today. (How could this happen? You'd think that the folks at a Minneapolis newspaper would at least read Lileks. Oh, wait). Hewitt says:
I have just posed the question to Stefan Sharkansky: How does the Star Tribune's decision to reprint the Scheer fantasy compare to a paper's decision to reprint a Jayson Blair article two days after his resignation?I feel put on the spot to say something profound here, but I'm no Howard Kurtz, and this comparison is facile enough that all I can think to say is: "well, yeah".
Hewitt also has a well-written Weekly Standard column on the Scheer/L.A. Times scandal which closes:
So the question for Mickey Kaus is quite simple: How can a newspaper that tolerates such stuff be taken seriously at any level? Hospitals don't keep quacks on staff to butcher again, nor do most law firms hang on to incompetents. Most professions ruthlessly weed out the crazies and the dangerous.Presumably, Kaus will have a more interesting response to Hewitt's question to him than the response I gave above. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2003 12:20 PMNot the Los Angeles Times.
...well, there you go. You leave the Bay Area for a couple of weeks and Chronicle feels free to get right back to its silly tricks. Yes, of course, the Chron also ran the Scheer piece (or is that sheer piece of...) today. Don't you miss it? BTW, Ruth Rosen sends her best (if she can ever find it).
GF